The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that he was not involved in accident. He was the driver of a taxi, and was assaulted by a passenger about 50 steps from the taxi while following him to his home to get payment for the fare. The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal did not err in finding the incident was not an accident. Neither the purpose test nor causation test were met. The Court distinguished its decision in North Waterloo v. Samad, where the applicant was injured in an assault, but also in the process of slipping on ice while exiting his vehicle. In the present case, the claimant was injured solely as a result of the assault. The Court explained that a direct cause is one that sets in motion a train of events that brings about a result without the intervention of any other force. The Tribunal was correct in considering whether the assault constituted an intervening event while broke the chain of causation. The Court also noted that applying a “large and liberal” interpretation of the term “accident” could not broaden the definition to include indirect causes of injury or impairment.
