S.B. v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2019 CanLII63363
Chisholm v. Liberty Mutual Group, 2002 CanLII 45020 (ONCA)
Greenhalgh v. ING Halifax Insurance Co., 2004 CanLII 21045 (ONCA)
- The first part of the test, the purpose test, requires a determination of whether the incident resulted from an ordinary and well-known activity to which automobiles are put. In this case, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant had completed filling her car with gas, was walking away from her vehicle at the time she fell, and that her use of her vehicle had ended prior to her fall. As the applicant was walking away from her car at the time she fell, the purpose test was not met.
2. The second part of the test, the causation test, requires a determination of whether the use or operation of the automobile directly caused the impairment. The video shows that the applicant is a “plus size person”, wearing a jacket and that her car is parked too close to the gas pump “to allow her to walk…without touching her car.” The applicant stated that she had no contact with the car. However, there is no evidence in this case that the way the applicant’s car was parked played any role in her fall. The causation test failed to be met in this case.
