Case information

Insurance — Automobile insurance — Legislation — Interpretation — Does the territoriality principle adopted by this Court in Tolofson Jensen; Lucas (Litigation Guardian of) Gagnon, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1022 apply when interpreting a term that is not defined in either statutory provisions or contractual terms, where the incident occurred in one jurisdiction and involved a resident of another jurisdiction — Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8 — Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, Ontario Regulation 34/10 — Off Road Vehicles Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.4.

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 respondent, an Ontario resident, was the named insured under an Ontario automobile policy issued by the applicant. In June 2013, while he was living in British Columbia, the respondent fell off an all-terrain vehicle (“ATV”) owned and driven by a B.C. resident. The respondent suffered severe injuries and filed an application for accident benefits in Ontario. The applicant denied coverage on the basis that, as the accident occurred in British Columbia, the question of whether an ATV constitutes an automobile for Ontario accident benefit purposes must be determined under the laws of B.C., which do not require ATVs to be insured as motor vehicles. Attempts at mediation failed and the respondent applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. Applying the principle of lex loci delicti, the arbitrator determined that since the ATV was not an automobile under the laws of B.C., the respondent was not entitled to benefits. The Director Delegate upheld the denial of benefits on a statutory appeal and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court dismissed the respondent’s application for judicial review. The Ontario Court of Appeal interpreted and applied the laws of Ontario in the context of the Ontario contract of insurance and allowed the respondent’s appeal. The Court held that the ATV was an automobile pursuant to the laws of Ontario, the respondent was involved in an accident as defined in the SABS Regulation and he was therefore entitled to benefits under SABS Regulation 34/10.