Category: Accident Definition

The claimant exited his truck, and left the vehicle running while he walked up to a building. While returning to his vehicle, he slipped on ice and fell. The claimant applied for accident benefits and the insurer denied the application, stating that the claimant was not involved in an “accident” as defined by the SABS. On examination under oath, the claimant testified that he slipped approximately 5 to 10 feet away from the vehicle. Vice Chair Farlam held that the incident was not an “accident”. Vice Chair Farlam found that the dominant factor that caused the claimant’s injuries was his slip and fall on the icy parking lot. Vice Chair Farlam held that the claimant’s injuries were caused by a later intervening cause, the fact that he slipped on ice on the ground, which broke the chain of causation.

The claimant parked and exited her vehicle, and proceeded to walk around the rear of the vehicle when she slipped and fell on an icy driveway. The claimant applied for accident benefits and the insurer denied the application, stating that the claimant was not involved in an “accident” as defined by the SABS. Vice-Chair Farlam held that the claimant’s injuries were not a consequence directly caused by the use or operation of the automobile but were caused by a later intervening cause, that she slipped on ice on the ground. Ice on the ground and the claimant’s slip and fall constituted an independent intervening event that broke the chain of events, and her use or operation of the automobile was not the dominant feature of the claimant’s injuries.

The claimant was walking to her vehicle when she slipped and fell on ice. The fall happened as she was turning towards the driver’s side door and had activated the key fob to unlock the vehicle. The Tribunal accepted that the claimant had satisfied the purpose test, as the accident arose from the ordinary and well-known activities for which automobiles are put. However, Vice Chair Maedel considered that conducting a dominant feature analysis would be appropriate in the circumstances. This analysis requires the Tribunal to determine the element of the incident that most directly caused the injuries. Vice Chair Maedel determined that the dominant feature in this case was the ice and not the vehicle. As a result, the claimant could not prove that the use or operation of an automobile had directly caused her injuries. The Tribunal rules that the claimant had not been involved in an “accident”.

This claim arises out of a vehicle attack that occurred in Toronto on April 23, 2018. The claimant, a firefighter, developed psychological impairments after responding to the incident. The insurer denied the application for benefits, arguing that the claimant had not been involved in an accident pursuant to the SABS. The Tribunal agreed with the insurer, finding that the claimant had failed to satisfy both purpose and causation tests. Adjudicator Paluch found that the vehicle which had been used as a weapon had not been operated in a manner consistent with ordinary use. The Tribunal emphasized that when vehicles cease to be used as automobiles, the SABS does not require an insurer to provide coverage. The Tribunal also considered the claimant’s use of the firetruck at the scene but concluded that the causation test had still not been satisfied. The use and operation of the fire truck was not the cause of the claimant’s injuries which had developed due to prolonged exposure to the horrific scene.

The claimant was involved in an assault by a motorcyclist and applied for accident benefits as a result. The insurer argued that the claimant had not been involved in an accident as denied by s. 3(1) of the SABS. The Tribunal agreed. Vice Chair Boyce highlighted that unless the vehicle itself is associated with a specific impairment, assaults are not considered accidents under the SABS. The assault was found by the Tribunal to have broken the chain of events, and that even where the use of a vehicle is the catalyst to a subsequent assault causing injury, it is not enough to show that the vehicle was merely in the vicinity. The use or operation of the vehicle must have directly caused the injury for an incident to constitute an accident.

The claimant was the victim of a physical assault after he had cut off a truck on the highway. The Tribunal found that this incident did not fall within the definition of an accident under the SABS as the claimant had failed to satisfy both the purpose and causation test. The vehicle was not responsible for the cause of the claimant’s impairments and the insurers denial was upheld.