In Pourkhodayar v. The Personal Insurance Company (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court allowed a LAT SABS appeal/JR, here where the applicant "was denied on the basis that she had not been involved in an “accident” as defined in s. 3(1)".
Here the court considered a 'dominant feature' (remoteness) issue:
[32] As explained in Davis, at paras. 75-76, the dominant feature question is directed at determining whether the link between the use or operation of the automobile and the resulting impairment was too remote to be called “direct”: see also Greenhalgh, at para. 12. The court also confirmed that there may be more than one direct cause: Davis, at para. 77, citing North Waterloo Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Samad, 2018 ONSC 2143, 77 C.C.L.I. (5th) 60 (Div. Ct.), at para. 13.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
