Saskatchewan Government Insurance v. Pipchuk, 2008 SKCA 82

• Judge: Richards, Hunter and Wilkinson, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: June 03, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2008 SKCA 82;(2008), 311 Sask.R. 81 (CA)

SGI v. Pipchuk (2008), 311 Sask.R. 81 (CA);

      428 W.A.C. 81

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.039

Saskatchewan Government Insurance (appellant) v. Darla Pipchuk (respondent)

(No. 1397)

Darla Pipchuk (appellant) v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (respondent)

(No. 1405; 2008 SKCA 82)

Indexed As: Saskatchewan Government Insurance v. Pipchuk

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Richards, Hunter and Wilkinson, JJ.A.

June 19, 2008.

Summary:

Pipchuk was injured in an automobile accident in December 2001 and was immediately unable to work. In January 2002, she applied for injury benefits under the Automobile Accident Insurance Act (AAIA), complaining of shoulder and neck problems. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) accepted her application and began paying income replacement benefits. During a June 2002 return to work program, Pipchuk experienced lower back problems. In September 2004, SGI cancelled Pipchuk's benefits because her December 2001 injuries had resolved and were not contributing to her ongoing lower back symptoms. Pipchuk appealed.

The Automobile Injury Appeal Commission found that Pipchuk's back injury occurred during the return to work program and had not been caused by the motor vehicle accident. Thus, SGI was not responsible for benefits due to the back injury. However, the Commission held that because SGI had created a situation where Pipchuk was precluded from making a claim for workers' compensation benefits for the back injury, estoppel applied. SGI's decision to terminate benefits was set aside. SGI appealed regarding estoppel. Pipchuk cross-appealed regarding the finding that the back injury was not caused by the accident.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed SGI's appeal and dismissed Pipchuk's cross-appeal.

Estoppel - Topic 1163

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Representation - By conduct - Practice or course of conduct - Pipchuk was injured in an automobile accident in December 2001 and was immediately unable to work - In January 2002, she applied for injury benefits under the Automobile Accident Insurance Act (AAIA), complaining of shoulder and neck problems - Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) accepted her application and began paying income replacement benefits - During a June 2002 return to work program, Pipchuk experienced lower back problems - In September 2004, SGI cancelled Pipchuk's benefits because her December 2001 injuries had resolved and were not contributing to her ongoing lower back symptoms - On Pipchuk's appeal, the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission found that Pipchuk's back injury occurred during the return to work program and had not been caused by the motor vehicle accident - Thus, SGI was not responsible for benefits - However, the Commission held that because SGI had created a situation where Pipchuk was precluded from making a claim for workers' compensation benefits for the back injury, estoppel applied - SGI's decision to terminate benefits was set aside - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed SGI's appeal - The Commission did not properly appreciate the inter-relationship between the AAIA and the Workers' Compensation Act - Neither the passage of time nor Pipchuk's receipt of AAIA benefits precluded her from applying for workers' compensation benefits - As she had never applied for such benefits, there was no evidence that she had been deprived of them - Any attempt to assess prejudice or detriment to Pipchuk in that regard was speculative - The Commission's decision was set aside - See paragraphs 19 to 29.

Estoppel - Topic 1389

Estoppel in pais (by conduct) - Circumstances where doctrine not applicable - Lack of prejudice or detrimental reliance by person raising estoppel - [See Estoppel - Topic 1163 ].

Insurance - Topic 5063.1

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Bodily injury and death benefits - Pre or post accident condition (incl. aggravation of) - Pipchuk was injured in an automobile accident in December 2001 and was immediately unable to work - In January 2002, she applied for injury benefits under the Automobile Accident Insurance Act (AAIA), complaining of shoulder and neck problems - Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) accepted her application and began paying income replacement benefits - During a June 2002 return to work program, Pipchuk experienced lower back problems - In September 2004, SGI cancelled Pipchuk's benefits because her December 2001 injuries had resolved and were not contributing to her ongoing lower back symptoms - On Pipchuk's appeal, the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission found that Pipchuk's back injury occurred during the return to work program and had not been caused by the motor vehicle accident - However, SGI's decision to terminate benefits was set aside on the basis of estoppel - Pipchuk appealed regarding the finding that the back injury was not caused by the accident - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court accepted that the question of whether an injury sustained during a return to work program could be seen as having been caused by the original accident presented a question of law - However, there was no error of law in the Commission's view that an injury was not compensable if it was "wholly unrelated" to a motor vehicle accident or to a condition caused by such an accident - Given the Commission's findings of fact regarding the back injury, it acted correctly - See paragraphs 30 to 41.

Insurance - Topic 5068

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Bodily injury and death benefits - Income replacement (incl. temporary disability benefits) - [See Insurance - Topic 5063.1 ].

Insurance - Topic 5078

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Bodily injury and death benefits - Termination of - [See Estoppel - Topic 1163 and Insurance - Topic 5063.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 2003 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 18].

Regina Sticks Ltd. v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance, [1993] 7 W.W.R. 572; 113 Sask.R. 40; 52 W.A.C. 40 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Bogdanoff v. Saskatchewan Government Insurance (2001), 203 Sask.R. 161; 240 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SKCA 35, refd to. [para. 34].

Saskatchewan Government Insurance v. Steinhauer (2006), 275 Sask.R. 59; 365 W.A.C. 59; 2006 SKCA 1, refd to. [para. 38].

Athey v. Leonati et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458; 203 N.R. 36; 81 B.C.A.C. 243; 132 W.A.C. 243, refd to. [para. 38].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fridman, Gerald Henry Louis, The Law of Torts in Canada (2nd Ed. 2002), generally [para. 38].

Klar, Lewis N., Tort Law (3rd Ed. 2003), p. 387 ff. [para. 38].

Linden, Allen M., Canadian Tort Law (7th Ed. 2001), p. 323 ff. [para. 38].

Counsel:

Gary Bainbridge, for Saskatchewan Government Insurance;

William Selnes, for Darla Pipchuk.

These appeals were heard on June 3, 2008 by Richards, Hunter and Wilkinson, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. On June 19, 2008, Richards, J.A., delivered the following written reasons for the court.