Injuries casued by a breaking seat on a bus occurred pursuant to the use and operation of a motor vehicle.
The issue in this case was whether the plaintiff’s injuries were causally connected to the use or operation of a motor vehicle. The Court ruled that the injuries were connected to the use of a motor vehicle, meaning that the legislatively imposed thresholds and deductibles were applicable to the plaintiff’s claim.
Nelson v. Greater Toronto Transit Authority, [2009] O.J. No. 3794, September 15, 2009, Ontario Supreme Court of Justice, G.M. Mulligan J.
The plaintiff was injured when the seat he was sitting in broke, causing him to fall backward. At the time of the incident, the plaintiff was riding on a moving bus operated by the defendant, Greater Toronto Transit Authority. The defendant brought a motion seeking a declaration that the plaintiff’s injuries arose directly or indirectly from the use of an automobile as defined by s. 1 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8. The defendant also sought a declaration that it was a “protected defendant” pursuant to s. 267.3 of the Insurance Act, which would entitle it to the benefit of the threshold under s. 267.5(5), and the $30,000.00 deductible under s. 5.1. of the Court Proceedings for Automobile Accidents that Occur on or After November 1, 1996, O. Reg. 461/96.
The Superior Court of Justice ruled that the plaintiff’s injuries were sustained during the use of an automobile, and that the defendant was a “protected defendant” entitled to the benefit of the threshold and the deductible. In so ruling, the Superior Court referred to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Amos v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 405. In Amos, the Supreme Court held that the determination as to whether injuries are suffered through the use of a motor vehicle depends on whether the accident resulted from the ordinary use of an automobile, and whether there is some causal relationship between the injuries and the ownership, use, or operation of the vehicle. In applying this test to the case at bar, the Superior Court ruled that it would be “torturous reasoning” to conclude that the plaintiff, who was injured while he was a passenger on a moving bus, did not suffer his injuries from the use or operation of a motor vehicle.
This case was digested by Kim Yee and edited by David W. Pilley of Harper Grey.
