Issue: Whether Ms. Davis's slip and fall in a parking lot, while reaching to unlock her car, constituted an “accident” under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS), O. Reg. 34/10.
Lower Decisions:
- Licence Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal): Denied Ms. Davis's claim, ruling her injuries were caused by the ice rather than the use or operation of her vehicle.
- Divisional Court: Overturned the Tribunal's decision, holding that her proximity to the car and holding the key fob meant her use of the car directly caused the injuries.
Motion for Leave to Appeal:
- Applicant: Aviva General Insurance Company.
- Arguments: Aviva claimed the Divisional Court misapplied the causation test under SABS, emphasizing that the injuries were caused by ice, not the vehicle's use or operation.
- Position of Respondents:
- Tribunal: Neutral.
- Ms. Davis: Did not oppose the motion.
Decision by the Court of Appeal:
- Analysis:
- The court reaffirmed the Sault Dock framework for leave to appeal, which requires showing a question of law or mixed law and fact with significance for Ontario’s jurisprudence.
- It ruled that this case did not raise such a question, as the matter was highly fact-specific and did not warrant revisiting the established SABS test.
- Outcome: Leave to appeal was denied.
- Costs: None awarded, as the motion was unopposed.
Key Takeaways:
- The Sault Dock framework emphasizes the broader impact on jurisprudence rather than individual importance or factual disputes.
- Physical contact with a vehicle is not strictly required under the SABS "accident" test, but mere proximity or intent to use the vehicle does not suffice.
