|
Statutory Interpretation - Insurance. Botbyl v. Heartland Farm Mutual Inc. [interpretation of SABS auto insurance regime]
In Botbyl v. Heartland Farm Mutual Inc. (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court allowed a LAT SABS appeal, here from a LAT reconsideration decision which overturned an initial decision "that granted the Insureds relief from forfeiture of their insurance policy under s. 129 of the Insurance Act". The central issue here was whether the LAT [under s.280 'Resolution of disputes'] had jurisdiction to grant relief from forfeiture [under IA s.129], even though that provision grants such jurisdiction to the "court".
Here the court considers the interpretation of the SABS auto insurance regime:The purpose of the SABS
[32] In Tomec v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co., 2019 ONCA 882, 148 O.R. (3d) 438, the Court of Appeal set out the overriding principles to be applied in interpreting the SABS. In doing so the Court adopted the articulation of those principles set out in Arts (Litigation Guardian of) v. State Farm Insurance Co. (2008), 2008 CanLII 25055 (ON SC), 91 O.R. (3d) 394 (S.C.J.), at para. 16, where the Court states:The SABS are remedial and constitute consumer protection legislation. As such, it is to be read in its entire context and in their ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of the legislature. The goal of the legislation is to reduce the economic dislocation and hardship of motor vehicle accident victims and, as such, assumes an importance which is both pressing and substantial. (emphasis added). [33] Tomec also states that faced with a choice between an interpretation of the statute “that furthers the public policy objectives underlying the SABS and one that undermines it, the only reasonable decision is to side with the former”: para. 45. . Morrissey v. Wawanesa Insurance Company
In Morrissey v. Wawanesa Insurance Company (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal allowed a LAT SABS appeal, here where a long-term catastrophically-injured auto insurance claimant sought additional 'attendent care benefits'.
Here the court notes the 'consumer protection' nature of auto insurance:[36] I will attend to the legislative text later. In this appeal the context and purpose of the legislation play important roles that I will summarize briefly. First, automobile insurance is well understood to be a form of consumer protection: Abarca v. Vargas, 2015 ONCA 4, 123 O.R. (3d) 561, at para. 36, citing Smith v. Co-operators General Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 30, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 129, at para. 11. . Kellerman-Bernard v. Unica Insurance Company
In Kellerman-Bernard v. Unica Insurance Company (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered an interesting SABS appeal where the insured, whose son was injured in a bicycle accident, herself applied for 'catastrophic impairment' SABS coverage on the basis of emotional and psychological injuries. She was denied coverage both at the LAT appeal and a further LAT reconsideration on grounds that she was not categorically-eligible, but reversed at the Divisional Court on a statutory interpretation argument.
Here the court sets out the basics of it's statutory interpretation assessment:[14] In Skunk v. Ketash, 2018 ONCA 450, the Court of Appeal states as follows:[8] The principles of statutory interpretation require the court first to look to the plain meaning of the statute. If the words have a plain meaning and give rise to no ambiguity, then the court should give effect to those words. ....
The interpretation adopted by the LAT ignores the purpose of the SABS
[23] In Vavilov, supra at para. 117, the Supreme Court reiterates that the words of a statute are to be read “ in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.”
[24] The courts have repeatedly recognized that the SABS are remedial and constitute consumer protection legislation and ought to be read, interpreted and applied in such a way. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Smith v. Co-Operator’s General Insurance Co. 2002 SCC 30 (CanLII), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 129 at para. 11.
[25] In Tomec v. Economical, 2019 ONCA 882 the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that “[the] legislature’s definition of ‘catastrophic impairment’ is intended to foster fairness for victims of motor vehicle collisions by ensuring that accident victims with the most health needs have access to expanded medical and rehabilitation benefits. That definition is meant to be remedial and inclusive, not restrictive” and that the goal of the SABS “is to reduce the economic dislocation and hardship of motor vehicle accident victims and as such, assumes an importance which is both pressing and substantial” (see para. 42).
|
