The claimant alleged that an accident occurred as he was walking towards a transit bus. As the bus began to pull away from the bus stop, the claimant reported that he knocked on the side of the bus as it drove away. He claimed to have made momentary eye contact with the driver before losing his balance and slipping off the curb. The claimant’s right foot was allegedly run over by one of the rear bus tires. The claimant got onto the next bus and the driver asked if he required an ambulance. The insurer questioned whether or not this incident met the definition of an “accident” under the Schedule, given the claimant’s inconsistencies in his recollection of the accident details and the lack of any objective evidence. Vice Chair Maedel was not satisfied that the claimant’s injuries were caused by the use or operation of the transit bus. Vice Chair Maedal reviewed the totality of the evidence and was unable to determine that there was a nexus between the operation of the bus and the injuries sustained by the applicant. There was no witness evidence to corroborate the incident. There was no photographic evidence of the claimant’s injuries, and no incident reports or calls logged to the City of Hamilton, Hamilton Police, or ambulance records. Lastly, no medical evidence was produced that demonstrated the injuries the claimant sustained are consistent with the type of impact alleged.
