The claimant was roller blading along a sidewalk when a van allegedly cut in front of him, causing the claimant to fall to the ground. The claimant did not impact the van. The insurer argued that the incident did not occur as reported, and that if it did, it did not qualify as an accident. Adjudicator Grant held that the incident qualified as an “accident.” He favoured the evidence of the claimant over that of the insurer, which had relied upon a police officer testifying two years after the incident without notes of the incident. The facts as reported by the claimant met both the purpose and causation test because a van was involved and there were no intervening acts.
