Digest: Bourelle v Saskatchewan Government Insurance, 2018 SKQB 120

Date:April 24, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 120

Docket Number: QBG 1317/02 JCS , QB17512

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-04-24


  • Smith


  • Automobile Accident Insurance Act � Income Replacement Benefits Statutes � Interpretation � Automobile Accident Insurance Act, Section 129

Digest: The applicant had been injured in three separate motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) that occurred between 1996 and 1998. She began receiving income replacement benefits (IRB) under Part VIII, Division 4 of The Automobile Accident Insurance Act (AAIA) in April 1996. The respondent, Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI), terminated the IRB on March 15, 2000, effective March 15, 2001 because in its opinion, the applicant was able to return to the employment she had held at the time of her first accident pursuant to s. 129(1)(a) of the AAIA. The applicant applied for a review of the decision, but SGI did not change its position. She then exercised her right to a hearing under the AAIA and issued a statement of claim. She submitted that SGI was incorrect in determining that she was able to return to her regular employment in March 2002 and that in fact, she did not recover to that state until December 2008. At the time of the first accident, the applicant was working 25 hours per week for her husband�s carpet-laying business. She maintained that she performed clerical/accounting duties as well as having to help physically with carrying heavy equipment and carpet. SGI said the evidentiary record showed that her duties were clerical/accounting in nature. The applicant had suffered from medical problems prior to the accident and SGI argued that the health issues that the applicant claimed were ongoing were not causally related to the MVAs. Both parties called expert witnesses. The applicant underwent independent medical exams conducted by a physician retained by her and by a physician selected...

To continue reading