Holtby-York v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance, (2016) 484 Sask.R. 167 (CA)

• Judge: Richards, C.J.S., Ottenbreit and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: March 16, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2016), 484 Sask.R. 167 (CA);2016 SKCA 95

Holtby-York v. SGI (2016), 484 Sask.R. 167 (CA);

    674 W.A.C. 167

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] Sask.R. TBEd. AU.014

Kim Holtby-York (appellant) v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (respondent)

(CACV2638; 2016 SKCA 95)

Indexed As: Holtby-York v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Richards, C.J.S., Ottenbreit and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A.

August 3, 2016.

Summary:

In January 2012, York was fatally injured in a motor vehicle accident. His spouse, the appellant, was entitled to survivor benefits pursuant to s. 144 of the Automobile Accident Insurance Act. At the time of his death, York was unemployed and receiving both Workers' Compensation and Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits as a result of injuries sustained by him in a work-related incident. Saskatchewan Government Insurance refused to include York's CPP disability payments as income when calculating the appellant's survivor benefits. The appellant appealed SGI's decision to the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission. The Commission dismissed the appellant's appeal, confirming SGI's conclusion that CPP disability payments were not employment income for the purposes of s. 144(1)(a) of the Act. In arriving at its decision, the Commission relied on the decision in Cugliari v. White (1998 ONCA). Moreover, the Commission was of the view that s. 17 of the Personal Injury Benefits Regulations, which provided how "yearly employment income" was to be calculated and, in particular, s. 17(2)(b) limited the calculation thereof to "benefits connected with the salary and wages an insured receives from his employment". The appellant appealed that decision.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The Commission did not err in finding that CPP disability benefits were not employment income within the meaning of s. 144(1)(a) of the Act.

Insurance - Topic 5052

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Bodily injury and death benefits - Measure of - In January 2012, York was fatally injured in a motor vehicle accident - His spouse, the appellant, was entitled to survivor benefits pursuant to s. 144 of the Automobile Accident Insurance Act - At the time of his death, York was unemployed and receiving both Workers' Compensation and Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits as a result of injuries sustained by him in a work-related incident - Saskatchewan Government Insurance refused to include York's CPP disability payments as income when calculating the appellant's survivor benefits - The appellant appealed SGI's decision to the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission - The Commission dismissed the appellant's appeal, confirming SGI's conclusion that CPP disability payments were not employment income for the purposes of s. 144(1)(a) of the Act - In arriving at its decision, the Commission relied on the decision in Cugliari v. White (1998 ONCA) - Moreover, the Commission was of the view that s. 17 of the Personal Injury Benefits Regulations, which provided how "yearly employment income" was to be calculated and, in particular, s. 17(2)(b) limited the calculation thereof to "benefits connected with the salary and wages an insured receives from his employment" - The appellant appealed that decision - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The Commission did not err in finding that CPP disability benefits were not employment income within the meaning of s. 144(1)(a) of the Act.

Counsel:

Jonathan Abrametz, for the appellant;

Jane Wootten, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 16, 2016, before Richards, C.J.S., Ottenbreit and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Ryan-Froslie, J.A., on August 3, 2016.