Economical Mutual Insurance Co. v. Caughy,

• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Judge: Hoy, A.C.J.O., Lauwers and Hourigan, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Citation: (2016), 348 O.A.C. 200 (CA),2016 ONCA 226
• Date: 24 March 2016

Economical Mutual v. Caughy (2016), 348 O.A.C. 200 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] O.A.C. TBEd. MR.033

Economical Mutual Insurance Company (appellant) v. Patrick Caughy (respondent)

(C60642; 2016 ONCA 226)

Indexed As: Economical Mutual Insurance Co. v. Caughy

Ontario Court of Appeal

Hoy, A.C.J.O., Lauwers and Hourigan, JJ.A.

March 24, 2016.

Summary:

Caughy and others attended a jamboree at a campsite. They parked their trailers in a horseshoe, leaving an opening at one end for a walkway. One evening, other campers parked their motorcycles on the walkway. Caughy was playing tag with his daughter. He tripped over a parked motorcycle, fell into his truck and suffered serious spinal cord injuries. Caughy's insurer denied coverage on the ground that there was no "accident" as defined in s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. Caughy sued to enforce the payment of benefits. The applications judge allowed the claim, finding that there was an "accident" where both the purpose test and causation test under s. 3(1) were satisfied. The insurer appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Insurance - Topic 5006.3

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - General - Accident defined - Section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule defined an "accident" as "an incident in which the use or operation of an automobile directly causes" injury - Caughy and others attended a campsite jamboree - They parked their trailers in a horseshoe, leaving an opening at one end for a walkway - One evening, other campers parked their motorcycles on the walkway - Caughy was playing tag with his daughter - He tripped over a parked motorcycle, fell into his truck and suffered serious spinal cord injuries - Caughy's insurer denied coverage on the ground that there was no "accident" - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that there was an "accident" where both the purpose test and causation test were satisfied - The temporary parking of the motorcycles on the walkway constituted an ordinary or well-known use of the vehicles - Vehicles were designed to be parked - Parking constituted an ordinary and well-known activity to which vehicles were put - There was no requirement that the vehicle causing the injury be in "active use".

Insurance - Topic 5064

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Bodily injury and death benefits - "Ownership, use or operation" of a vehicle - [See Insurance - Topic 5006.3 ].

Cases Noticed:

Amos v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 405; 186 N.R. 150; 63 B.C.A.C. 1; 104 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 9].

Greenhalgh v. ING Halifax Insurance Co. (2004), 190 O.A.C. 64; 72 O.R.(3d) 338 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2004), 338 N.R. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

Martin v. 2064324 Ontario Inc. et al. (2013), 302 O.A.C. 50; 113 O.R.(3d) 561; 2013 ONCA 19, leave to appeal denied (2013), 466 N.R. 386 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 9].

Vytlingam v. Farmer et al., [2007] 3 S.C.R. 373; 368 N.R. 251; 230 O.A.C. 364; 2007 SCC 46, refd to. [para. 15].

Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co. v. Prest, [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 92; 2013 ONSC 92, refd to. [para. 20].

Counsel:

Daniel Strigberger and Alexandra Wilkins, for the appellant;

Nigel Gilby, Jasmine Akbarali and Christopher Dawson, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 16, 2016, before Hoy, A.C.J.O., Lauwers and Hourigan, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

On March 24, 2016, Hourigan, J.A., released the following judgment for the Court of Appeal.