Hewitt v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance, (1999) 185 Sask.R. 130 (QB)

• Judge: Laing, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: September 24, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1999), 185 Sask.R. 130 (QB);1999 SKQB 98

Hewitt v. SGI (1999), 185 Sask.R. 130 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] Sask.R. TBEd. OC.062

Kevin Hewitt (plaintiff) v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (defendant)

(1997 Q.B.G. No. 400; 1999 SKQB 98)

Indexed As: Hewitt v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Laing, J.

September 24, 1999.

Summary:

Hewitt sought a declaration that he was entitled to receive lump sum benefits for permanent impairment as a result of being rendered a quadriplegic in a motor vehicle accident in which he was the operator and sole occupant of his vehicle. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) argued that Hewitt was disentitled by s. 186(1)(a)(i)(A) of the Automobile Accident Insurance Act because he was more than 50 per cent re­sponsible for the accident and, at the time of the accident, he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs to such an extent that he was incapable of having proper control of his vehicle.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that SGI failed to prove that Hewitt breached s. 186(1) of the Act and Hewitt was entitled to permanent impairment bene­fits.

Insurance - Topic 5090

Automobile insurance - Compulsory gov­ernment schemes - Exclusions - Intoxica­tion - Hewitt was rendered a quadriplegic when the vehicle he was driving left the road - Saskatchewan Government Insur­ance (SGI) argued that Hewitt was disentitled from receiving permanent im­pairment benefits by s. 186(1)(a)(i)(A) of the Automobile Accident Insurance Act because he was more than 50 percent responsible for the accident and, at the time of the accident, he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs to such an extent that he was incapable of having proper control of his vehicle - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that Hewitt was entitled to permanent impairment benefits - The court concluded that Hewitt took evasive action upon meet­ing another vehicle with its bright lights on and that he had reacted to a situation cre­ated by another driver and was not more than 50 percent responsible for the acci­dent - There was also no evidence, aside from blood alcohol evidence, that Hewitt's faculties were impaired and there was therefore no basis to infer that he was incapable of proper control of his vehicle.

Cases Noticed:

Walls v. Mussens Ltd. and Morrison (1969), 2 N.B.R.(2d) 131; 11 D.L.R.(3d) 245 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Neufeld v. Landry (1974), 55 D.L.R.(3d) 296 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Runolfson v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (1989), 78 Sask.R. 142 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 20].

Rozycki v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (1998), 173 Sask.R. 299 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 20].

Saskatchewan Government Insurance v. Lamontagne (1991), 101 Sask.R. 277 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 20].

Saskatchewan Government Insurance v. Sargent (1996), 142 Sask.R. 208 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 20].

Gilchuk v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1992), 12 C.C.L.I.(2d) 143 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Wong v. Insurance Corp. of British Col­umbia (1993), 16 C.C.L.I.(2d) 143 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

Ursu v. Saskatchewan Government Insur­ance Office (1980), 9 Sask.R. 327; 9 M.V.R. 32 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 22].

Hand v. Halifax Insurance Co. (1975), 7 O.R.(2d) 194 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Counsel:

T.E. Turple and M.R. Mantyka, for the plaintiff;

J.A. Bailey and E.P. Agioritis, for the defendant.

This action was heard before Laing, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following decision on September 24, 1999.