Canada: The Art of Due Diligence: Priority Disputes Among Insurers


The enactment of Ontario Regulation 283/95 – Disputes Between Insurers (the "Regulation") has obliged insurers to continue payment of Statutory Accident Benefits ("SABS") to injured person even where entitlement to these benefits is disputed. At the same time, the insurers 'battle it out' behind the scenes over which has higher priority and should be paying for the claimed benefits.

A priority dispute arises when there are multiple motor vehicle liability policies which might respond to a SABS claim made by an individual involved in a motor vehicle accident.

Section 268(2) of the Ontario Insurance Act sets out the hierarchy of insurers obligated to pay SABS with respect to the occupant claimants, as follows:

  1. Insurer of an automobile in respect of which the claimant is an insured;
  2. Insurer of the automobile in which claimant is an occupant;
  3. Insurer of any other automobile in the subject accident; and
  4. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

With respect to non-occupant claimants (i.e. pedestrians), the hierarchy remains the same, but for the second recourse, which for non-occupants, is the insurer of the automobile that struck them.

Lastly, if an individual has recourse against more than one insurer for the payment of SABS, that individual, in his or her "absolute discretion", may decide the insurer against which he or she will claim the benefits.

The success of a priority dispute often depends on the parties and arbitrator having enough information upon which to establish priority. As such, production of documentation and thorough due diligence on behalf of the claims handler is critical to the success of priority dispute arbitration.


The time begins to run once the insurer has a "completed application". The Regulation defines "completed application" as "completed and signed application" and "application" is defined as "application for accident benefits (OCF-1) approved by the Superintendent for the purposes of the Schedule." In other words, the priority disputes timeline generally begins to run once the insurer has received a completed and signed OCF-1. However, it has been argued that if there is sufficient information upon which to adjust a file, it may be found to constitute an application in the absence of an OCF-1.

It is important to note that the first insurer that receives a completed application for benefits is obligated to pay benefits regardless of priority. In fact, claims analysts are barred from taking any steps intended to prevent or stop the claimant from submitting a completed application to the insurer and should not refuse to accept the completed application or re-direct the claimant to another insurer. The claims analysts are simply advised to adjust the file in accordance with the provisions of the SABS pending the resolution of any priority dispute.

Once the insurer receives a "completed application", it must provide written notice within 90 days of receipt of a "completed application" for benefits to every insurer who it claims is required to pay under s. 268 of the Insurance Act.

An insurer may give notice after the 90-day period if

  • 90 days was not a sufficient period of time to make a determination that another insurer or insurers is liable under section 268 of the Act; and
  • the insurer made the reasonable investigations necessary to determine if another insurer was liable within the 90-day period.1

In addition to providing the notice, the insurer ought to give notice to the insured person using a form approved by the Superintendent.

It is worth noting that the above exception requires a hefty burden of proof and as such claims analysts are encouraged to conduct appropriate due diligence in the early stages of the file in order to satisfy the 90-day notice requirement. It is important to note that in many instances the claims analysts might have to retain counsel to conduct an Examination Under Oath ("EUO") in order to determine whether another insurer has priority.

Finally, the arbitration must be initiated no later than one year after the day the first insurer gives notice. The following rules apply with respect to an arbitration of a dispute relating to an accident that occurs on or after September 1, 2010:

  1. If an insurer to whom a notice to initiate arbitration is delivered does not respond to the notice within 30 days, the insurer is deemed to have accepted the jurisdiction of the arbitrator proposed in the notice.
  2. A pre-arbitration hearing must be scheduled and take place no later than 120 days after the appointment of the arbitrator.
  3. Subject to paragraph 4, once a date for the arbitration is scheduled, the arbitration must be conducted on that day.
  4. The arbitrator may grant an adjournment on such terms as the arbitrator considers appropriate, but only if there is cogent and compelling evidence of the reasons why the hearing cannot proceed on the scheduled day.
  5. Unless consented to by all parties, the hearing of the arbitration must be completed within two years after the commencement of the arbitration.

Therefore, the success of priority dispute arbitration largely depends on the steps and due diligence conducted by claims handler in the early stages of the file.


Priority disputes tend to arise from ambiguous policy wordings and as such any time there is some question as to whether, for instance, a claimant is "dependent" on a named insured or "a spouse" of a named insured, the claims analyst should be flagging these files and diligently assessing the likelihood of another insurer having higher priority.

Another situation wherein priority disputes frequently arise is where there is some question as to whether the claimant had "regular use of an automobile" during the course of his or her employment.

The relevant sections pertaining to the issues of 'dependency', "a spouse" of a named insured and "regular use of an automobile" indicate as follows:

(5) Despite subsection (4), if a person is a named insured under a contract evidenced by a motor vehicle liability policy or the person is the spouse or a dependent, as defined in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, of a named insured, the person shall claim statutory accident benefits against the insurer under that policy. 1993, c. 10, s. 26 (2); 1999, c. 6, s. 31 (9); 2005, c. 5, s. 35 (13).

(5.1) Subject to subsection (5.2), if there is more than one insurer against which a person may claim benefits under subsection (5), the person, in his or her discretion, may decide the insurer from which he or she will claim the benefits. 1993, c. 10, s. 26 (2).

(5.2) If there is more than one insurer against which a person may claim benefits under subsection (5) and the person was, at the time of the incident, an occupant of an automobile in respect of which the person is the named insured or the spouse or a dependant of the named insured, the person shall claim statutory accident benefits against the insurer of the automobile in which the person was an occupant. 1993, c. 10, s. 26 (2); 1999, c. 6, s. 31 (10); 2005, c. 5, s. 35 (14). [Emphasis Added].

Furthermore, section 3(7)(f) of the SABS states that an individual who is living and ordinarily present in Ontario shall be deemed to be the named insured under the policy insuring an automobile at the time of an accident if, at the time of the accident,

  • The insured automobile is made available for the individual's regular use by a corporation, unincorporated association, partnership, sole proprietorship or other entity; or
  • The insured automobile is rented by the individual for a period of more than 30 days. [Emphasis Added].

I. (Financial) 'Dependency'

Financial dependency is one of the most common issues that arise in 'dependency' priority disputes. This issue commonly arises when the claimant is seeking accident benefits payments from the insurer of the vehicle he or she was in but at the same time, he or she is financially dependent on another insured (i.e. family member) who has their own automobile insurance policy.

Some aspects of the financial dependency issue are well-known to insurers and well-established in the case law. However, other aspects of the issue may be more elusive. For instance, how is a claimant's income defined for financial dependency purposes? What time frame should be used for determining dependency?

  1. Background

    In part, the SABS defines a dependent as someone who "is principally dependent for financial support... on [another] individual or the individual's spouse."3 decision in Miller v. Safeco4 four criteria to consider in looking at whether someone is a dependent:

    1. the amount of dependency;
    2. the duration of the dependency;
    3. the financial and other needs of the alleged dependent; and
    4. the ability of the alleged dependent to be self-supporting.5
    In turn, principal dependency is determined by looking at what is known as the "50+1%" analysis. For a claimant to be "principally dependent" on another individual, "50+1%" of their resources must come from that individual.6

    The "50+1%" analysis can be done in one of two ways:

    1. by looking at the claimant's expenses or needs; or
    2. in the alternative, by looking at the Low Income Cut-Off (LICO) measure as an indicator of the claimant's expenses or needs.7
    The claimant's expenses or needs (actual or as a LICO measure) are then compared to their income and the resources provided by the individual upon whom the claimant is thought to be dependent. If this individual provides "50+1%" of the resources required to support the claimant's needs or expenses, then the claimant will be found dependent on them.
  2. Defining Income

    Defining the claimant's income is one of the first steps to determining whether "50+1%" of his or her resources comes from another individual.

    The SABS defines income as "salary, wages and other remuneration from employment," as well as "any benefits received under the Employment Insurance Act (Canada)".8 However, the definition does not include "any retiring allowance within the meaning of the Income Tax Act (Canada)" or severance pay.9

    In line with this definition, arbitrators and courts have considered the following resources as income for the "50+1%" analysis:

    1. T4 income10
    2. Social assistance income/Ontario Works income11
    3. Self-employment income12
    However, scholarships and government student loans (e.g., OSAP) are not considered income.13 Otherwise, college and university students who have large scholarships or loans would be eliminated from their parents' insurance policies. This rationale goes against the public policy to ensure that insurance coverage is broadened and not restricted for claimants.14
  3. Determining Timeframes

    The timeframe for determining principal dependency varies from case to case. The general rule is that arbitrators and courts should consider the "big picture" and not just a "snapshot" of the claimant's life.15 The chosen timeframe should fairly reflect "the status of the claimant [on] the date of the accident".16

    Overall, arbitrators and courts have considered timeframes up to several years.17 As outlined in Co-operators General Insurance Co v. Royal & Sunalliance Insurance Co, the traditional timeframe generally is twelve months. However, there is case law to suggest that short periods may be considered.18

    The following are some examples of timeframes chosen by arbitrators and courts:

    1. Seven weeks: in the seven weeks prior to the accident, the claimants (two young children) moved out of their biological father's home and into a home with their biological mother and her boyfriend, upon whom they were found to be dependent;19
    2. Two months: in the two months prior to the accident, the claimant discontinued his relationship with Children's Aid Society and changed his education, employment and residency arrangements;20
    3. Three months: in the three months prior to the accident, the claimant began college and was living with her boyfriend away from home.21

Overall, the focus is not about the permanence of a status change – which, as the Ontario Court of Appeal stated, can be "speculative or unreliable" – but rather on the "true nature" of a status change at the time of the accident.22 A recent change in the claimant's living arrangements, or relationships may ultimately affect who they were (or were not) dependent upon at the time of the accident.

Therefore, the case law clearly considers certain resources as income and other resources as excluded under the definition of income. However, the timeframe for determining dependency must be done on a case-by-case basis. The focus must be on the "big picture" with a view towards a fair and true reflection of the claimant's status at the time of the accident.

II. Regular Use of an Automobile

With respect to the "regular use of an automobile" prong, an illustrative (recent) case is Intact Insurance v. Aviva Canada Insurance.23 The issue in this case was whether the claimant had "regular use" of the company vehicle while he was on seasonal lay off and had not returned to regular duties.

The Arbitrator looked to the decision in ACE INA Insurance v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. [2009] CanLII 13625, O.J. No. 1276 for guidance. In this case, Justice Belobaba interpreted the principle of a work vehicle "being made available" at the time of the accident. The claimant was an employee of a rental car service and had access and permission to use the rental vehicles for his employment-related needs. The claimant was involved in a motor vehicle accident when he was heading downtown on a Sunday morning, when he was not in the course of his employment and when he was off work for nine days. Justice Belobaba noted that the main question was whether the vehicle was made available to the claimant at the time of the accident, "when he was off work and on his way downtown...."

Justice Belobaba held that regular use of a vehicle is not a "portable status that remains with the insured – the status is only conferred at and for, a moment in time, namely the time of the accident. The employer's insurer is liable to pay accident benefits, if and only if, at the time of the accident a company-insured car was being made available to the employee." As such, Justice Belobaba concluded that the claimant did not have regular use of the company vehicle at the time of the accident.

The decision in ACE INA outlined a number of important cases with relevant factors to consider when determining whether priority rests with the company insurer. These factors are reproduced as follows:

  • The fact that the use of a vehicle is limited to work purposes does not change the categorization of the use as "regular".
  • The language employed by the SABS does not require the use of the employer's motor vehicle to be frequent, exclusive or personal. The mere fact that there is some use that can be said to be regular was sufficient to give the individual status under the policy.
  • Using a company vehicle 3-4 times per month constitutes "regular use" within the meaning of section 66 of the SABS.
  • Regular use does not mean frequent use. A "reasonable" and "common sense" definition for "available" and "regular use" was applied concluding that one need not have exclusive or personal use in order to be deemed to have regular use of a vehicle.
  • "Regular" is intended to describe "periodic, routine, ordinary or general" as opposed to "irregular or out of the ordinary". "Regular use" does not apply where the characterization is "irregular at best and out of the ordinary".

In the ACE INA case, the Arbitrator concluded that the employee had regular use of the company car at the time of the accident. The Arbitrator looked at the following factors in reaching his decision:

"The evidence discloses several other indicia of permission for personal use. He was given the keys and permission to take the vehicle home. He was not asked to return the vehicle to the company between work assignments or during seasonal layoff. The company admittedly took no steps to monitor personal use. There was no evidence adduced of any disciplinary action even having been taken against the Claimant for personal use, or for that matter, any other employee. I am satisfied that the Claimant was never specifically told he could not use the vehicle for personal tasks. The impression left is that this was a small company where the employer turned a blind eye to occasional personal use by its trusted and long-term employees such as [the Claimant], and that they would not step in unless there was serious abuse of the privilege. On this basis, I find that the Claimant had permission, or at the very least implied permission, to have personal use of the vehicle." [Emphasis Added].

Therefore, the Arbitrator found that the claimant had "regular use" of a company vehicle insured by Aviva at the time of the accident and therefore qualified as a deemed named insured by reason of s. 3(7)(f) of the SABs.


Although the above information is intended to be helpful in dealing with priority disputes issues, it is important to note that priority disputes are largely decided on 'case-by-case' basis.

The facts of the case, documentation produced (including any transcripts from Examination Under Oath and witness statements) and due diligence of both the claims handler (in the early stages) and counsel (in the latter stages) ultimately decide the outcome of priority dispute arbitrations.


1. O. Reg. 283/95, s. 3 (2).

2. O. Reg. 38/10, s. 9.

3. O Reg 34/10, s 3(7)(b).

4. Miller v. Safeco (1986), 48 OR (2d) 451 (HCJ), aff'd 50 OR (2d)797 (CA) ("Miller").

5. Ibid.

6. Co-operators Insurance Co v Halifax Insurance Co, (Ont Insurance Act) (December 14, 2001, Arbitrator Samis), aff'd[2002] OJ No 2459 (Sup Ct J) ("Co-operators No. 1").

7. Co-operators General Insurance Co v Royal & Sunalliance Insurance Co, 2017 CarswellOnt 7984 (Ont Insurance Act) (May 16, 2017, Arbitrator Bialkowski) at paras 35-36 ("Co-operators No. 2").

8. O Reg 34/10, s 4(1).

9. Ibid.

10. Intact Insurance Co. of Canada and Economical Mutual Insurance Co., Re, 2014 CarswellOnt 10515 (Ont Insurance Act) (July 17, 2014, Arbitrator Bialkowski) at paras 34-35 ("Intact No. 1"); Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Co. of Canada and AXA Insurance (Canada), Re, 2014 CarswellOnt 7180 (Ont InsuranceAct) (May 7, 2014, Arbitrator Bialkowski) at para 20 ("Royal & SunAlliance").

11. Ibid; Intact Insurance Co. and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Re, 2013CarswellOnt 19271 (Ont Insurance Act) (June 6, 2013, Arbitrator Bialkowski) at para 25 ("Intact No. 2").

12. Ibid.

13. Co-operators No. 2, supra note 5 at paras 55-57.

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid at para 52.

16. Guarantee Co. of North America and Wawanesa Insurance Co., Re, 2010 CarswellOnt 18810 (Ontario Insurance Act) (May 7, 2010,Arbitrator Samis) at para 19 ("GuaranteeCo.").

17. Intact No. 1, supra note 8.

18. Co-operators No. 2, supra note5 at para 43.

19. Intact Insurance Co v Allstate Insurance Co of Canada, 131 OR (3d) 625, 403 DLR (4th) 438 (CA) at para 81 ("Intact No. 3").

20. Guarantee Co., supra note14 at paras 23-24.

21. Co-operators, supra note5 at paras 28 and 43.

22. Intact No. 3, supra note17 at paras 77-81.

23. Intact Insurance Company v. Aviva Canada Insurance Company,March 8, 2018.

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.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Samis + Company
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Samis + Company
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