Ontario Personal Injury Lawyers
Call 1-888-404-5167
Preszler Injury Lawyers

Am I Entitled to Statutory Benefits for a Car Accident Outside of Ontario?


All automobile insurance providers in Ontario are required to provide their policyholders with the mandatory types of coverage outlines in the provincial Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS). Even though certain no-fault accident benefits should be available to all injured survivors of motor vehicle collisions, insurance companies do not always make it easy for policyholders to access the coverage they are rightfully owed. In fact, injured car accident survivors are often forced to go through different processes of administrative reviews and judicial appeals just to receive the coverage they are rightfully owed.

Security National Insurance Company v. Kumar: What Does it Mean to be a “Resident” of Ontario?

Here is a recent example that illustrates just how far an insurance company will go. Recently, the Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a ruling upholding an earlier decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) in favour of a car accident victim seeking statutory benefits. The LAT is usually the first place an accident victim will turn for review following an insurer’s decision to deny a claim.

In this case, the insurer’s rejection turned on the question of the applicant’s legal residency at the time of his accident.

Why does this matter? Because the accident itself occurred in Alberta, and under the SABS regulations, an insurer is only required to cover the insured driver (or occupant) of a vehicle “who is a resident of Ontario or was a resident of Ontario at any time during the 60 days before the accident” for an accident outside Ontario.

Talk With Our Legal Team



If you have any questions and would like to schedule a call with our legal team for a FREE no-obligation consultation, contact us now. During this call you can ask any questions as it relates to your accident and/or claim and we'll discuss your options and possible outcomes.

Regardless of where you're located in Ontario – we may be able to help you. Don't delay - call us. Our lines are open 24/7.

First, some backstory on the applicant: He is not a Canadian citizen. Rather, he is a native of India who lawfully entered Canada in May 2010 on a student visa. After graduating from university in Ontario, the applicant obtained a three-year work permit.

The applicant initially looked for office jobs in Ontario. In the interim, he accepted a friend’s invitation to work to make some money on the side as a truck driver in Alberta for a few months. The car accident took place about three months into the applicant’s Alberta employment.

The applicant sought statutory benefits from his insurance company. The insurer rejected the claim, arguing the applicant was not a resident of Ontario at the time of the accident or within the 60-day period preceding the accident. The applicant then filed an application with the LAT.

Insurance Company Misrepresents Accident Victim’s Facebook Posts

The insurance company based a good deal of its argument on the romantic relationship status of the applicant at the time of his accident. The applicant began dating a woman while at university. The couple later moved in together at an address in Ontario and announced their engagement.

Before the LAT, the insurance company actually introduced the applicant’s Facebook posts from around the time he left for his trucking job in Alberta. The posts indicated the applicant was feeling lonely. The insurer submitted this was proof the applicant and his fiancée broke up just before his departure.

This was important, the insurer claimed, since his relationship was the only thing keeping the applicant connected to his Ontario residency.

Call 1-888-608-2111 for available options or Book a Consultation

The applicant presented a substantially different account. Although the applicant and his fiancée did eventually end their relationship, he said that did not happen before he left for Alberta. Indeed, the applicant said his Facebook posts were meant to express his loneliness at being separate from both his family in India as well as his then-fiancée.

More to the point, the applicant submitted additional evidence supporting his contention that his relocation to Alberta was temporary and he always intended to maintain his legal residence in Ontario. For example, the applicant had (and has) an Ontario driver’s license. He also continuously maintained a cell phone with an Ontario-based number.

The adjudicator for the Licence Appeal Tribunal ultimately held that the applicant was an Ontario resident.

The Divisional Court Rejects Insurer’s Appeal

Not content to accept the LAT’s ruling, the insurance company appealed to the Divisional Court. But Justice Alison Harvison Young, writing for the Divisional Court, dismissed the appeal.

Setting aside the insurance company’s peering into the applicant’s social life, the substantive question for the Divisional Court was whether or not a person was considered an Ontario resident if he or she has been out of the province “for more than 60 days.”

The regulation states that a person is only insured for an accident outside of the province if he or she was “a resident of Ontario at any time during the 60 days before the accident.” Justice Harvison Young said she did not read this as “the maximum period during which a person can be out of Ontario while still falling within the definition of ‘insured person’.”

Instead, the judge noted that Canadian courts typically adopt a “flexible, context specific approach” when determining a person’s “ordinary” residence. The mere fact the applicant was not physically present in Ontario at the time of his accident does not, in and of itself, prove or disprove residency.

As discussed above, there was ample evidence supporting the applicant’s Ontario residency, including his still-active engagement, his driver’s license, and his stated intention to return to Ontario when his temporary work in Alberta ended.

One final note: The insurance company also raised the applicant’s “immigrant status” in an attempt to further discredit his residency status. The Divisional Court was having none of this. Justice Harvison Young noted the applicant entered Canada legally on a student visa, remained here legally on a work permit, and plans to remain in Ontario for “the longer term.”

CONTACT PRESZLER INJURY LAWYERS

It is unfortunate that anyone has to go through extensive judicial review just to receive what are supposed to be “no-fault” accident benefits. Unfortunately, insurance providers often use unfair tactics to withhold coverage from deserving policyholders.

If you believe the injuries you sustained in a motor vehicle accident should entitle you to insurance coverage, make sure to take advantage of your free initial consultation with our Ontario accident benefits lawyers. To learn how Preszler Injury Lawyers may be able to assist you, call 1-800-JUSTICE today.

 
Call us now at
1-800-JUSTICE
®

151 Eglinton Ave W,
Toronto, ON
M4R 1A6
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
4145 N Service Rd
Burlington, ON
L7L 4X6
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
2 County Ct Blvd #400,
Brampton, ON
L6W 3W8
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
105 Consumers Drive
Whitby, ON
L1N 1C4
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
92 Caplan Ave #121,
Barrie, ON
L4N 0Z7
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
380 Wellington St Tower B, 6th Floor,
London, ON
N6A 5B5
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
2233 Argentia Rd Suite 302,
East Tower Mississauga, ON
L5N 6A6
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
1 Hunter St E,
Hamilton, ON
L8N 3W1
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
459 George St N,
Peterborough, ON
K9H 3R9
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
22 Frederick Street,
Suite 700
Kitchener, ON N2H 6M6
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
352 Elgin Street,
Ottawa ON
K2P 1M8
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
10 Milner Business Ct #300,
Scarborough, ON
M1B 3C6
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
*consultation offices

DISCLAIMER: Please be advised that the header image and other images throughout this website may include both lawyer and non-lawyer/paralegal employees of Preszler Injury Lawyers and DPJP Professional Corporation and unrelated third parties. Our spokesperson John Fraser, or any other non-lawyer/paralegals in our marketing is not to be construed in any way as misleading to the public. Our marketing efforts are not intended to suggest qualitative superiority to other lawyers, paralegals or law firms in any way. Any questions regarding the usage of non-lawyers in our legal marketing or otherwise can be directed to our management team. Please also note that past results are not indicative of future results and that each case is unique. Please be advised that some of the content on this website may be out of date. None of the content is intended to act as legal advice as each situation is independent and unique and requires individual legal advice from a licensed lawyer or paralegal. For legal advice on your individual situation – we can provide legal guidance after you have contacted our firm and we have established a lawyer-client relationship contractually. Maximum contingency fee charged is 33%. Finally, our usage of awards and logos for awards does not suggest qualitative superiority to other lawyers, paralegals or law firms. All awards received from third party organizations have been done so through their own reasonable evaluative process and do not include any payment for these awards except for the use of the award logos for our marketing assets.