In Herbison v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., an insured and his wife drove to a hunting site just before sunrise. The insured saw movement in the woods, illuminated by the headlights of the insured's automobile. Believing the movement to be that of a deer, the insured shot another hunter. The Ontario Court of Appeal later confirmed a causal relationship existed between the injured hunter's damages and the insured's use or operation of his truck, such that the insured's automobile insurance policy indemnified the injured hunter.

In Vytlingam, Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Jean MacFarland, writing for the majority, agreed with Ontario Superior Court Justice Sidney Lederman in the matter of Saharkhis v. Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd's London that "the use of the word 'indirectly' imports a relaxed causation requirement comparable to the one suggested by [John Major], J. in Amos" Although the Ontario Court of Appeal on the one hand, confirmed the relaxed causation requirement proposed by Major J. in Amos, it was nevertheless unwilling to suggest the inclusion of the word "indirectly" further relaxed the causal connection requirement beyond that found in [Amos].

In Herbison, Ontario, Court of Appeal Justice Stephen Borins, writing for the majority, seemed to suggest the term "indirectly" has further relaxed the causal requirement beyond that found in Amos when he wrote: "... the phrase 'directly or indirectly' in s. 239(1)(b) of the Insurance Act has effectively removed the requirement of an unbroken chain of causation from the causation test ..." Borins further discussed the effect of the inclusion of the word "indirectly," saying that: "As this court has recognized, the 1990 amendment providing coverage for damages arising directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile has significantly broadened coverage." See, for example, the court's decision in Lefor (Litigation Guardian of) v. McClure.

The Supreme Court of Canada is currently considering two cases that explore the notion of the "indirect" use of an automobile. One involves an individual who was injured by a gunshot, the second involves an individual injured by a boulder dropped from an overpass. The question before the court is whether the applicable automobile insurance policy would indemnify the individual for the injuries suffered. In Herbison v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co, an insured and his wife drove to a hunting site just before sunrise. In a second tragic situation, Vytlingam v. Farmer, two youths used a vehicle to transport boulders to an overpass. Recent case law and legislative amendments have broadened coverage for injuries arising directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile. It is difficult to predict how the Supreme Court of Canada will decide the two Ontario Court of Appeal cases currently pending. But one thing is sure: the courts have consistently broadened and relaxed the coverage test.

Insurance coverage
Supreme Court decisions