Case information

Civil procedure — Costs — Legal fees and disbursement — Whether a no fault claimant appealing a decision rendered by the Saskatchewan Government Insurance should pay his or her legal fees and disbursements out of his or her defined no fault benefits when the appeal is allowed — Whether a no fault claimant’s statutory right to be reimbursed for costs pursuant to subsection 193(11) of the Automobile Accident Insurance Act is comparable to the statutory right of indemnification for costs of a landholder whose land was taken in an expropriation — Whether the Commission reasonably imported the concept of costs from the paradigm of civil litigation and should therefore refuse all requests for solicitor client costs unless Saskatchewan Government Insurance’s conduct was “scandalous, outrageous or reprehensible” — Whether such an interpretation can be reconciled with the Supreme Court decision in Ontario (Energy Board) v. Ontario Power Generation, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 147 — Whether the principle established by the Supreme Court in Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 471 prevents an appeal tribunal and an appellate court from immunizing a lower tribunal of its application — Automobile Accident Insurance Act, RSS 1978 c. A 36, para. 193(11) and (12).

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant, Ms. Linda Gardipy was injured in a motor vehicle accident on January 31, 2011. At the time of the accident, Ms. Gardipy was a full-time student in the Level 2 Adult Basic Education Program at North Regional College in Rosthern, Saskatchewan. Accordingly, she received benefits under the no fault provisions of the Automobile Accident Insurance Act, RSS 1978 c. A 36 (AAIA). In early 2013, the respondent, Saskatchewan Government Insurance issued decision letters concerning the right to benefits of Ms. Gardipy under the AAIA. A decision letter dated February 25, 2013, was issued to notify Ms. Gardipy that she was entitled to a loss of studies benefit in the amount of $4,544 pursuant to s. 121(2)(b) of the AAIA on the basis that she was studying at a secondary level of education. Later, a decision letter dated April 30, 2013, was issued to advise Ms. Gardipy that her loss of studies benefit mentioned in the previous decision letter had been quantified on the basis that she was attending an upgrading facility and not a post secondary level school at the time of the accident. Ms. Gardipy appealed those decision letters to the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission. The Commission allowed both appeals and awarded costs, inclusive of Ms. Gardipy’s legal costs, in the amount of $2,500. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the Saskatchewan Government Insurance and the cross-appeal of Ms. Gardipy. On the cross-appeal, the court concluded that the arguments of Ms. Gardipy regarding the automatic grant of full solicitor client costs for the successful claimant under s. 193(11) and (12) of the AAIA must fail.