Mobility scooter or automobile? The Ontario LAT in Bartok v Intact says “automobile” under the ordinary parlance test. A critical look at the decision and its implications for accident benefits and insurance.
Automobile Coverage
When Minor Isn’t Minor: Why Context Matters in MIG Classification
The Divisional Court in Marcelo clarifies that MIG classification is injury-based, not impairment-based. Context is critical in accident benefits files.
The Nexus Test in Ontario Accident Benefits: Wilson and Wais
Two Coachman decisions appear to point in opposite directions on nexus and priority. They don’t. Wilson and Wais reveal a disciplined framework reshaping how accident benefits claims are adjudicated at the LAT.
SABS Accident Found, But Late Notice Bars Claim: Jones
The LAT found a slip and fall near a vehicle was an accident under the SABS, but late notice accident benefits deadlines and missed reporting barred the claim.
OPCF 47R Explained: Ontario SABS Changes and the 2026 Reforms
Ontario’s new OPCF 47R endorsement fixes accident benefit priority issues and prepares insurers, agents, brokers, and policyholders for Ontario’s 2026 SABS reforms.
Sniffing Out Relief: How Due Diligence Beat a Claim Denial
One cancelled road test. One medical episode while driving. The court ruling that every claims adjuster needs to see.
Tick Tock, You’re Barred: LAT Applies Hard Line on SABS Timelines
She said her injuries didn’t seem serious. Her medical records said otherwise. The LAT sided with the paperwork—and barred her claim because it was late.
Ordinary Parlance: Meet the New Face of “Automobile”
Is a Caterpillar 930K wheel loader an “automobile” under Ontario insurance law? This SABS accident benefits coverage ruling might have you rethinking your ordinary parlance.
Principal Dependency Explained – Without Chasing Your Tail
Who counts as a “dependant” under Ontario’s standard auto insurance policy? The answer can determine whether someone is entitled to death benefits, optional benefits, or even which insurer pays under section 268(2) of the Insurance Act.
Claimant’s assault was not an automobile “accident”
The LAT has issued an accident benefits coverage decision, finding a claimant who was assaulted in his vehicle was not involved in an “accident” under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. Overview of assault and claim In Addison v Intact, the claimant had just...