Canada: Is The Courtroom Door Open Or Closed?

Last Updated: November 17 2016
Article by Helen D.K. Friedman

By way of update to our October 8, 2015 blog featuring Ayr Farmers Mutual v. Wright: "Insurer's Attempt to Short Circuit Dispute Resolution Process Shut Down", the insurer's appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on all grounds October 27, 2016.

As you will recall, Ayr Farmers took the position that Mr. Wright was not involved in an "accident" as defined by the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010, O. Reg. 34/10 (the "Schedule") so as to entitle him to benefits under the Schedule.

Rather than participate in the statutorily prescribed mediation process, Ayr Farmers went directly to court by way of application under Rule 14, seeking a determination of the "accident issue". Mr. Wright objected to this process, arguing that the prescribed dispute resolution process in sections 279 to 283 of the Insurance Act applied to a determination of "accident", including prescribed FSCO Mediation.

Mr. Justice Sweeney, at first instance, agreed with Mr. Wright on all points, confirming that the dispute resolution process set out in sections 279 to 283 of the Insurance Act was the process to be applied with respect to such determinations. "Entitlement to benefits" in section 279 of the Act included, on a plain reading, whether or not a person was involved in an accident. The definition of "insured person" in sections 279 to 283 should not be read down so narrowly as to exclude a person seeking a determination of whether or not an accident occurred.

The question on appeal was whether determination of the 'accident' issue was a preliminary issue which fell outside the section 279 scheme. In other words, until Mr. Wright was found to have been involved in an accident, he was not an 'insured person' for the purposes of sections 279 to 283 and therefore could not avail himself of those sections.

Ayr Famers argued this was a "coverage issue" rather than a benefit entitlement issue. Accordingly, before the statutory scheme in sections 279 to 283 was triggered, coverage must first be determined.

The Court of Appeal found that the scheme in section 279 provided for a comprehensive alternative process to the courts, which included a separate administrative body for resolving disputes between claimants and insurers concerning entitlement to and amounts of benefits. Part of this statutory scheme involved limiting access to the courts and providing incentives for claimants to pursue arbitration rather than litigation. Accordingly, to interpret sections 279 to 283 in a manner which would require claimants or an insurer to apply to the court for a preliminary determination of whether the claimant qualifies as an "insured person" would be inconsistent with the creation of a comprehensive alternate dispute process. Given the legislative intent to create a comprehensive alternate dispute process, the Court found it unlikely that a "coverage application" would be required as a condition precedent to accessing such a process.

Further, the Court found it unlikely that the legislature intended to create a bifurcated process which required a court application prior to advancing the claim under section 279 of the Insurance Act. The Court did acknowledge this could be more expeditious if it were ultimately determined the claimant would not qualify as an "insured person"; however, it would deprive the claimant of their right under sections 279 to 283 to make the choice of forum.

Finally, having regard to the purpose and scheme of the Act, the Court of Appeal determined that the term "insured person", in section 279, can reasonably be read as encompassing all persons claiming entitlement to benefits, whether or not it is ultimately determined that they are entitled to benefits. In this regard, the Court of Appeal adopted the "modern approach" to statutory interpretation which requires the statute to be read in a manner which accorded with the scheme and object of the Act and the intention of Parliament. The Court of Appeal also applied a purposive analysis, noting that a statute cannot be construed in such a way as to defeat the object and intent of the legislation, which in this case was providing coverage to the insured person. In other words, given that the legislature had enacted the dispute resolution provisions and created the statutory body (OIC/FSCO) and empowered OIC/FSCO to provide an alternative to the courts, the purpose of sections 279 to 283 was to be inclusive of all entitlement issues rather than exclusive.

While it is tempting to dismiss this decision as anachronistic, given the changes to the dispute resolution process effective April 1, 2016, this decision raises some interesting considerations applicable to the post-April 1, 2016 regime.

The Court of Appeal noted specifically that the arguments on appeal were largely confined to the dispute resolution process as it existed until March 31, 2016, and that the judgment should not be read as opining on the post-April 1, 2016 amending scheme. This comment suggests that the judgment may not be applicable to determinations on a go forward basis.

Section 280(1) of the Insurance Act currently uses the term "insured person" in mandating the LAT as the forum for disputes concerning entitlement to statutory accident benefits or in respect of the amount of such benefits.

Section 280(3) provides that no person may bring a proceeding in any court with respect to such a dispute other than as an appeal from the LAT or an application for judicial review.

As the definition of "insured person" has not changed from the previous wording, similar reasoning would likely apply to prevent parties from going to court for preliminary coverage issues. Furthermore, to suggest that section 280 of the Insurance Act limits access to the courts would be an understatement, given the explicit wording in section 280(3). That said, however, some of the rationale applied by the Court of Appeal is less likely to have traction in the post-April 1, 2016 regime. For instance, the Court of Appeal noted specifically that at the time that statutory accident benefits were introduced, the legislature created a specialized tribunal, the Ontario Insurance Commission (predecessor to the Financial Services Commission) as regulator of the insurance industry. The Court of Appeal specifically noted that FSCO was given a broad mandate which included regulatory, supervisory and dispute resolution responsibilities and powers. The Court of Appeal specifically noted that FSCO had been cited (ironically) with approval by the Court of Appeal for decisions on entitlement and had been described by the Court of Appeal as "a specialized body of arbitrators who routinely adjudicate claims for statutory accident benefits".

Clearly, with the dismantling of FSCO's dispute resolution process and the empowerment of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, the Court of Appeal's rationale is less compelling. The Licence Appeal Tribunal cannot in any way be considered as a "new regulator of the insurance industry." Given its broad mandate to adjudicate disputes under a myriad of statutes, it could not be considered "a specialized body of arbitrators who routinely adjudicate claims for accident benefits." Furthermore, the post-April 1, 2016 amendment eliminating the forum 'choice' between litigation and (FSCO) arbitration, eliminates any 'incentivization' to proceed in a specialized forum. Therefore, certain elements of the purposive analysis enunciated by the Court of Appeal would have less application.

Furthermore, section 280(3) limits court proceedings to appeal of a LAT adjudicator's decision and/or judicial review. It is clear from the Insurance Act itself that the courts will be called upon as the highest arbitor of statutory accident benefits disputes. Accordingly, the argument in favour of preliminary "coverage" determinations by the courts, who will in any event, be the ultimate arbitors of the issue, suggests engagement of the courts at the earliest ("coverage") stage would be a more expeditious route. In other words, if the courts are ultimately going to decide the disputes between the parties, it makes sense that this be done sooner rather than later.

The application process under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure allows for:

"The determination of rights that depend on the interpretation of a ... contract or other instrument, or on the interpretation of a statute, order-in-council, regulation ..."

This process appears to be designed to expeditiously adjudicate coverage issues such as "accident" issues. While the Rules specify that an application may be brought in respect of any matter where it is unlikely there will be any material facts in dispute, presumably, well-intentioned counsel could agree on the basic facts, so as to have the 'coverage' matter expeditiously determined by the courts, who would be the ultimate arbitors in any event.

As for Mr. Wright, it appears that he has had his day in court whether he intended it or not.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Helen D.K. Friedman
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions