Ballantyne v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance, (2015) 457 Sask.R. 254 (CA)

• Judge: Jackson, Klebuc and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: November 25, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2015), 457 Sask.R. 254 (CA);2015 SKCA 38

Ballantyne v. SGI (2015), 457 Sask.R. 254 (CA);

     632 W.A.C. 254

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.057

Rachel Ballantyne (appellant) v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (respondent)

(CACV2332)

Stanley Ballantyne (appellant) v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (respondent)

(CACV2333; 2015 SKCA 38)

Indexed As: Ballantyne v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Jackson, Klebuc and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A.

April 21, 2015.

Summary:

The Ballantynes, spouses, were injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2009 and, as a result, were entitled to benefits pursuant to the no fault provisions of the Automobile Accident Insurance Act. The Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI), the insurer under the Act, determined that the Ballantynes both qualified as students under the provisions of the Act but refused their application for income replacement benefits on the basis that their injuries did not prevent them from resuming their studies or engaging in employment that their studies might have entitled them to obtain. The Automobile Injury Appeal Commission upheld that decision. The Ballantynes appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the Commission's decision and ordered new hearings.

Insurance - Topic 5075

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Bodily injury and death benefits - Onus of proof - Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) awarded the insured students a living assistance benefit (Automobile Accident Insurance Act), but refused to award income replacement benefits - The insured appealed, arguing that a claimant had the onus of establishing that he or she was disabled and, thereafter, the onus shifted to SGI to prove that benefits were not payable or no longer required - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the insured's argument was without merit - Here, the SGI never accepted that the insured were entitled to income replacement benefits - Accordingly, the onus rested with the insured to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that they so were entitled - The fact they had been accepted as "disabled" for the purpose of receiving a daily living assistance benefit did not mean they were entitled to receive income replacement benefits - See paragraphs 14 to 17.

Insurance - Topic 5078.1

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Bodily injury and death benefits - Students - Section 123(1) of the Automobile Accident Insurance Act provided that "If a student is unable because of an accident to hold an employment that the student's current studies would have allowed the student to hold, the student is entitled to an income replacement benefit pursuant to this section" - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal interpreted this provision - See paragraphs 18 to 41 - The court stated, inter alia, that in interpreting s. 123(1), "the ordinary meaning of the words of that provision must be read in the context of the Act as a whole and in the context of Part VIII in particular. It is also important to keep in mind the purpose of the Act and the legislature's intention in enacting the provision. The provision is benefit conferring and accordingly must be given a broad and purposive interpretation. It must also be interpreted in a manner that will not lead to absurdities" - See paragraph 21.

Insurance - Topic 5078.1

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Bodily injury and death benefits - Students - Section 123(1) of the Automobile Accident Insurance Act provided that "If a student is unable because of an accident to hold an employment that the student's current studies would have allowed the student to hold, the student is entitled to an income replacement benefit pursuant to this section" - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal interpreted this provision - See paragraphs 18 to 41 - The court concluded that "... s. 123(1) applies to all students regardless of the level of their 'current studies' (elementary, secondary, or post-secondary) and regardless of the nature of those studies (general or job specific). The phrase 'to hold an employment that the student's current studies would have allowed the student to hold' does not require 'an employment' to be specifically related to the 'current studies' though in some instances that may in fact be the case. That phrase should be interpreted broadly to mean any employment for remuneration that a student's 'current studies' may assist in qualifying him or her to obtain" - See paragraph 40.

Insurance - Topic 5078.1

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Bodily injury and death benefits - Students - The Ballantynes, spouses, were injured in a motor vehicle accident - Before the accident Mr. Ballantyne was a commercial fisher, however, he had been accepted into a community college upgrade program, hoping to obtain janitorial work - Mrs. Ballantyne was also attending a community college literacy program - Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) determined that the Ballantynes did not qualify for income replacement benefits for students because their goal of upgrading their education to obtain janitorial work was too remote to qualify as "an employment that the student's current studies would have allowed the student to hold" (Automobile Insurance Act, s. 123(1)) - The Ballantynes appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the Commission erred in its interpretation of s. 123(1)) - The Commission's interpretation of s. 123(1) would exclude from income replacement benefits any student whose current studies did not prepare them for a specific type of employment - See paragraphs 18 to 41.

Statutes - Topic 2601

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - General principles - [See first Insurance - Topic 5078.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Caplette v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (2011), 375 Sask.R. 37; 525 W.A.C. 37; 334 D.L.R.(4th) 628; 2011 SKCA 69, refd to. [para. 12].

Murphy v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance, [2008] 7 W.W.R. 401; 310 Sask.R. 149; 423 W.A.C. 149; 2008 SKCA 57, refd to. [para. 12].

Collis v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (1998), 165 Sask.R. 108 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Job v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (2004), 257 Sask.R. 85; 342 W.A.C. 85; 2004 SKCA 164, refd to. [para. 14].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 19].

Saskatchewan Government Insurance v. Speir (2009), 331 Sask.R. 250; 460 W.A.C. 250; 2009 SKCA 73, refd to. [para. 19].

Acton v. Britannia No. 502 (Rural Municipality) et al., [2012] 4 W.W.R. 213; 405 Sask.R. 180; 563 W.A.C. 180; 2012 SKCA 127, refd to. [para. 19].

Statutes Noticed:

Automobile Accident Insurance Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. A-35, sect. 123(1) [para. 18].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (6th Ed. 2014), pp. 28, 29 [para. 20].

Counsel:

Jonathan Abrametz, for the appellants;

Jane Wootten, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 25, 2014, before Jackson, Klebuc and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by Ryan-Froslie, J.A., on April 21, 2015.