Is a public transit rider entitled to accident benefits for injuries inside the vehicle? The Divisional Court confirms not unless the vehicle collided with “another automobile or any other object”. This decision clarifies when accident benefits are available for bus injuries in Ontario and how the “no crash, no cash” rule under s. 268(1.1) of the Insurance Actlimits entitlement.
Facts of Mohammed v TTC Insurance
In Mohammed v TTC Insurance, Ms. Mohammed was riding a public transit bus when a fire truck travelled through the intersection ahead of the bus. A vehicle ahead of the bus stopped, causing the bus to brake abruptly. As a result, Ms. Mohammed was thrown forward and alleged injuries caused by contact with the interior of the bus.
Ms. Mohammed sought statutory accident benefits from TTC Insurance, who denied benefits, and she challenged the denial at the LAT.
The preliminary issue at the LAT was whether the benefits claimed were barred by s. 268(1.1) of the Insurance Act, which sets out exceptions to entitlement affecting public transit vehicles.
What Is the “No Crash, No Cash” Rule for Bus Injuries?
Section 268(1.1) provides that “no statutory accident benefits are payable in respect of an occupant of a public transit vehicle, in respect of an incident that occurs on or after the date this subsection comes into force, if the public transit vehicle did not collide with another automobile or any other object in the incident.”
This provision is often referred to as the “no crash, no cash” rule, reflecting that accident benefits are unavailable without a qualifying collision.
Can You Claim Accident Benefits for a Bus Injury?
In practical terms, accident benefits are not available for bus injuries unless the vehicle is involved in a collision with an external object, such as another automobile or physical obstruction.
Does a Passenger Count as “Any Other Object”?
The LAT found that the exception in s. 268(1.1) applied to this case, as the bus did not collide with another automobile or object. Ms. Mohammed submitted that she was “any other object.” However, the LAT disagreed – and the Divisional Court confirmed – that “any other object” refers to something outside the bus, not a person or item within it. The LAT also found this interpretation to be consistent with the meaning of “object” in the Ontario Automobile Owner’s Policy (OAP-1).
In her appeal and application for judicial review at the Divisional Court, Ms. Mohammed, citing R v Barton, submitted that the LAT erred in its interpretation of the statute and that the legislature’s choice to use the broad wording “any other object” required the words to be given their “widest possible interpretation.” Ms. Mohammed also claimed that the LAT gave insufficient reasons for its conclusion on statutory interpretation and erred by relying on the OAP-1.
The Divisional Court rejected these arguments, finding that the plain wording of the Insurance Act should be read in context, not in isolation, and does not contemplate a person inside the vehicle as an “object.” The provision is not intended to capture all injuries suffered by a public transit rider but rather creates a limited exception to no-fault insurance in certain circumstances. Importantly, the Divisional Court noted that applicants are not left without recourse, as they may still pursue a tort claim in court. The Divisional Court also found that Barton arose in a different context and that the LAT appropriately considered the OAP-1, which is mandatory and prescribed by regulation.
As such, Ms. Mohammed’s appeal and application for judicial review from the LAT’s decision and reconsideration decision were dismissed.
Key Takeaways on Bus Injury Accident Benefits
The Divisional Court’s decision confirms that accident benefits for public transit riders are strictly limited under the “no crash, no cash” rule in s. 268(1.1) of the Insurance Act. Where an incident occurs entirely within the vehicle, without a collision involving an external object, entitlement to statutory accident benefits will generally not arise. In practical terms, the decision establishes the following:
- A collision is required to trigger accident benefits for transit riders
- Injuries caused by sudden braking or internal movement on a bus do not qualify
- A passenger is not considered an “object” for the purposes of s. 268(1.1)
- The provision creates a clear restriction on SABS entitlement in transit scenarios
- Claimants may need to pursue a tort claim instead of accident benefits
See Mohammed v. TTC Insurance Company Limited et al, 2026 ONSC 1477 (CanLII)
