Category: Accident Definition

The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that she was not involved in an “accident”. The claimant was injured in the back seat of her car when coffee was spilled on her due to the lid of a coffee cup coming off. The Court allowed the appeal, holding that the incident was an “accident” under the SABS definition. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in failing to follow the Court of Appeal’s decision in Dittman v. Aviva, which was a case involving similar facts. As in Dittman, the purpose test and the causation test were both met. The inadvertent spill of hot coffee purchased from a drive-through was part of the ordinary use and operation of a vehicle.

The claimant appealed and sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision that she was not involved in an “accident” as defined in the SABS. The claimant suffered an aneurysm in 2020 incident in which she was in a vehicle that was being pursued and harassed by a group of motorcyclists. There was no collision or contact between any of the vehicles. The aneurysm was caused by intense stress caused by the incident. The aneurysm resulted in a spinal cord hemorrhage, leaving the claimant paraplegic. The Tribunal found that the incident did not qualify as an accident because the causation test was not met. The Court granted the appeal and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for a new hearing. The Court found that the Tribunal’s decision was based on an unreasonable and unfair review of the expert evidence as to the cause of the aneurysm, and the Tribunal improperly relied upon the insurer’s expert. The Tribunal also erred in its analysis of the intervening cause question and dominant feature question.

The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that she was not involved in an “accident” when she slipped on ice while in the process of getting into her vehicle. The claimant also argued that the insurer’s decision to raise that issue more than three years after the accident was procedurally unfair. The Court granted the appeal and ordered a hearing with respect to the disputed benefits. The Court found that the facts of loss supported the conclusion that the claimant was involved in an “accident”. Slipping on black ice while she had the electronic fob in her hand to open and enter her car was part of the use of a motor vehicle. The claimant was close enough to the car that her leg came to rest under the front driver’s side wheel. The Court also noted in its decision that the Tribunal has equitable powers, and can act to prevent an abuse of process. However, the Court found that the Tribunal did not err in allowing the insurer to raise the argument about whether the facts of loss constituted an “accident”.

The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that his injuries were not the result of an accident. The claimant was a firefighter who responded to the 2018 van attacks in Toronto where 10 people were killed. The claimant arrived at the scene after the incident, and was confronted with the bodies of the deceased and injured victims. He suffered psychological trauma as a result. He initially applied to WSIB, but was eventually denied after he was found capable of returning to work. He then applied for accident benefits. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal correctly concluded that the claimant’s injuries were not a direct result of the use and operation of a vehicle. The firetruck that brought the claimant to the scene of the accident did not cause the claimant’s injuries, and the rental van was not in use by the time the claimant arrived at the scene.

The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that she was not involved in an accident. The claimant sustained injuries when she was driving and her husband physically assaulted her. She subsequently lost control of her vehicle and hit the curb. The Tribunal held that the assault was an intervening event that broke the chain of events, and that the dominant feature of her alleged injuries was the assault, while the use or operation of the vehicle was ancillary. The Court partially reversed the Tribunal, holding that the claimant’s alleged injuries after losing control of her vehicle may have been directly caused by the use or operation of an automobile and therefore might be considered an “accident”. The issues of whether and to what extent the claimant’s injuries were sustained as a result of her loss of control of the vehicle were remitted to the Tribunal to be determined at a hearing.

The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that he was not involved in an accident. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal’s reasons had no error of law, and that the claimant’s appeal was largely an attempt to relitigate the factual issues that were before the adjudicator.