The appellant husband was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident, rendering him unable to continue providing caregiving services to his wife, who suffered from a pre-existing medical condition.
The husband elected to receive income replacement benefits rather than caregiver benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The wife brought a derivative claim under s. 61 of the Family Law Act for the cost of hiring a substitute caregiver.
The Court of Appeal held that the substitute caregiver expenses were not 'health care' expenses under the Insurance Act, meaning the defendants were not protected from liability.
Furthermore, the court held that the wife's claim was her own statutory cause of action and was not barred by her husband's election of benefits.