Matheson v. Lewis et al., (2014) 323 O.A.C. 312 (CA)

• Judge: Juriansz, Tullock and Strathy, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: April 29, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2014), 323 O.A.C. 312 (CA);2014 ONCA 542

Matheson v. Lewis (2014), 323 O.A.C. 312 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.025

Arthur Matheson, Diane Matheson, Derek Matheson, Travis Matheson, Justin Matheson and John Matheson (plaintiffs/respondents) v. Gary Wayne Lewis, GMAC Leasco Limited, and Lanark Mutual Insurance Company (defendants/appellants)

(C57170; C58490; 2014 ONCA 542)

Indexed As: Matheson v. Lewis et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Juriansz, Tullock and Strathy, JJ.A.

July 11, 2014.

Summary:

The plaintiff, a farmer, was injured while driving an uninsured all-terrain vehicle (ATV) on a public road when he was struck from behind by a truck. The farmer and his family members (the plaintiffs) commenced an action against the driver of the truck, the truck owner and the farmer's own automobile insurer (the defendants). The plaintiffs brought a pre-trial motion to determine whether their action was statute barred by s. 267.6(1) of the Insurance Act. Section 267.6(1) precluded a claim for damages if the injured person was operating an uninsured motor vehicle on a highway contrary to s. 2(1) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act. The plaintiffs also sought a declaration that their claims against their insurer, Lanark Mutual Insurance Co., were not foreclosed by operation of s. 30(1)(a) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. Section 30(1)(a) provided that an insurer was not required to pay various benefits in respect of an injured driver who knew or ought reasonably to have known that he or she was operating an automobile without motor vehicle liability insurance.

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported [2013] O.T.C. Uned. 2441, held that the ATV was a "self-propelled implement of husbandry" and was therefore excluded from Ontario's compulsory insurance regime. Consequently, neither s. 267.6(1) of the Insurance Act nor s. 30(1)(a) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, applied to bar the plaintiffs' claims. The defendants appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal based on the conclusion the ATV was not a self-propelled implement of husbandry but an off-road vehicle that had to be insured when operated by a farmer on a public road. The court held that the action was statute-barred by operation of s. 267.6(1) of the Insurance Act and the claims against Lanark Mutual for statutory accident benefits were foreclosed by operation of s. 30(1)(a) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Courts - Topic 583.1

Judges - Duties - To enforce the law even if it is harsh ("Dura lex sed lex") - The plaintiff, a farmer, was injured while driving an uninsured all-terrain vehicle (ATV) on a public road - The compulsory vehicle liability insurance regime precluded a claim for damages if the injured person was operating an uninsured motor vehicle on a highway without insurance - A motions judge found that the ATV was a "self-propelled implement of husbandry" and therefore not subject to the compulsory vehicle liability insurance regime - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the motions judge erred in that conclusion - The motions judge failed to give effect to the legislative purpose of the specific provisions he had to interpret and apply - The legal maxim dura lex sed lex applied (i.e., the law is harsh but it is the law) - The provisions, even if considered "very harsh", had to be enforced - See paragraphs 36 to 40.

Insurance - Topic 5004

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Vehicles required to be insured (incl. off-road vehicles) - A farmer, who was driving his uninsured all-terrain vehicle (ATV) on a dirt road near his farm, was struck from behind by a truck - At issue was whether an ATV operated by a farmer and used by the farmer in farm operations was a "self-propelled implement of husbandry" and therefore not subject to the province's compulsory vehicle liability insurance regime - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the ATV was not a self-propelled implement of husbandry but an off-road vehicle that had to be insured when operated by a farmer on a public road - See paragraphs 22 to 47.

Motor Vehicles - Topic 57

General and definitions - Definitions - Self-propelled implement of husbandry - [See Insurance - Topic 5004 ].

Motor Vehicles - Topic 2222

Regulation of vehicles and traffic - Snow vehicles and all terrain vehicles - Legislation - [See Insurance - Topic 5004 ].

Statutes - Topic 520

Interpretation - General principles - Time for determination of meaning of words (incl. effect of changes in society) - At issue was whether an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) operated by a farmer and used in farm operations was a "self-propelled implement of husbandry" and therefore not subject to the province's compulsory vehicle liability insurance regime - A motions judge held that the regulatory regime had not kept pace with changes in society, that ATV's needed to be responded to appropriately by our laws, and that they needed to be recognized as self-propelled implements of husbandry - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the motions judge strayed outside the role of the court, which was to interpret and apply the laws enacted by the legislature - No technique of statutory construction allowed a court to decline to apply legislation that in its opinion had not kept pace with changes in society - See paragraphs 23 to 31.

Statutes - Topic 2617

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - Harmonization of statutes (incl. presumption of coherence) - The Ontario Court of Appeal, in determining whether an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) was a "self-propelled implement of husbandry", applied the principle of statutory interpretation that there was a presumption of harmony, coherence and consistency between statutes dealing with the same subject matter (in this case, the Highway Traffic Act, the Off-Road Vehicles Act, the Insurance Act, and the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act) - See paragraph 25.

Words and Phrases

Self-propelled implement of husbandry - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) was not a "self-propelled implement of husbandry" within the meaning of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-25 - See paragraphs 22 to 47.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Van Berlo (P.) (2010), 260 O.A.C. 291; 2010 ONCA 242, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 867; 275 N.R. 201; 206 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 304; 618 A.P.R. 304; 2001 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 25].

Statutes Noticed:

Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-25, sect. 2(1) [para. 3].

Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I-8, sect. 267.6(1) [para. 3].

Insurance Act Regulations (Ont.), Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Accidents on or after November 1, 1996, Reg. 403/96, sect. 30(1)(a) [para. 4].

Off-Road Vehicles Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O-4, sect. 15 [para. 24].

Off-Road Vehicles Act Regulations (Ont.), General Regulation - Off-Road Vehicles Act, sect. 3, para. 3 [para. 24].

Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Accidents on or after November 1, 1996 - see Insurance Act Regulations (Ont.).

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sullivan, Ruth, Statutory Interpretation (2nd Ed. 2007), pp. 149 to 151 [para. 25].

Counsel:

Stephen S. Appotive and Meghan E.W. O'Halloran, for Lanark Mutual Insurance Company;

Paul Muirhead, for Gary Wayne Lewis and GMAC Leasco Limited;

Robert E. Houston, Q.C., for the respondents.

This appeal was heard on April 29, 2014, before Juriansz, Tullock and Strathy, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court, by Juriansz, J.A., on July 11, 2014.