|
Insurance (Auto) - 'Insured Person' (2). Hamad v. Security National Insurance Company [dependent]
In Hamad v. Security National Insurance Company (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a joint LAT SABS appeal-JR, this where the "LAT determined that the Appellant was not an “insured person” as defined in s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule":[6] Section 3(1)(a) of the SABS defines an “insured person”, in respect of a particular motor vehicle liability policy, as the named insured, any person specified in the policy as a driver of the insured automobile and, if the named insured is an individual, the spouse of the named insured and a dependant of the named insured or of his or her spouse.
[7] The Appellant and her son did not reside with the named insured, and they were not specified drivers on the policy. To establish entitlement to the statutory accident benefits under the policy, the appellant was required to establish dependency on the named insured or the spouse of the named insured, the Appellant’s brother.
....
(ii) Did the LAT make an error of law?
[15] The reasons of the LAT reflect that the parties had agreed on the factors relevant to an assessment of dependency as set out in Miller v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America, CanLII 2019 (ONSC); aff’d 1985 CanLII 2022 (ONCA) and State Farm v. Bunyan, 2013 ONSC 6670. As set in the Decision, the reasoning in Allstate Insurance v. ING Insurance et al., 2025 ONSC 4020 was also applicable. It was noted in para. 13 that “in Allstate, the Court clarified that not only must a dependent be unable to provide for more than 50% of their own needs, but another person must provide more for the dependent than the dependent provides for themselves.”
[16] The findings of the LAT on the issue of dependency were set out in paras. 41-43 as follows:[41] I accept that the applicant, the named insured, and her spouse, who is the applicant’s brother, are close with each other, and as extended family they support one another. The applicant helps to look after the three children of the named insured while the named insured works, the named insured and her spouse help the applicant financially with her lease and incidentals for her children, and the spouse of the named insured provides male guidance for the applicant’s children in the absence of their father. I find, however, that this does not equate to the applicant’s principal dependence on the named insured or her spouse when considering a “big picture” approach.
[42] I have also assessed the applicant’s dependence using a mathematical approach based on her banking records. I agree that according to the applicant’s bank records, she received an average of $4,153.43 per month from government assistance, and her average monthly expenses were approximately $5,475.31 in the 12-month period leading up to the accident. These amounts are consistent with the applicant’s EUO testimony.
[43] If I accept the applicant’s submission that her lease payments were not reflected in her bank records, her average monthly expenses increase to $8,025.31. Again though, this is not consistent with her EUO testimony that her average monthly expenses were $5,500.00. According to the EUO testimony of the named insured and her spouse, they provided the applicant with $1,500.00 to $2,000.00 in addition to a few hundred dollars for groceries and incidentals for the children each month. Either way, I find that the applicant’s monthly government financial assistance surpasses the 50%+1 threshold related to her expenses, and that most of the applicant’s financial needs are not being met by the named insured or her spouse. As a result, I find that the applicant was not principally dependent on the named insured or her spouse for financial support or care. [17] The Appellant submits that the LAT erred in law with its analysis of Miller and Allstate. arguing that the LAT considered a “narrow analysis” of the “limited documentary financial evidence from the Appellant, the named insured, and her spouse”, but failed to consider the personal history of the alleged dependant.
[18] The Appellant submits the Tribunal’s approach did not encompass a broader and more nuanced understanding of the dependency relationship, specifically in a situation where financial support may not be formalized through receipts or bank statements. Further, that the LAT did not fully consider the testimony on her Examination Under Oath, which the Appellant asserts is evidence that she was principally financially dependent on the named insured
[19] She also submits that LAT erred in applying a strict application of the 50% +1 approach in finding her monthly government financial assistance surpasses the threshold related to her expenses instead of applying the “big picture approach.”
|
