ON LAT: Kroon v Belair SABS Falling Snow Incident Is an Accident

• The Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal ruled that injuries from snow falling from a gas station canopy during refuelling qualify as an "automobile accident" under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).
• The case, Kroon v Belair Insurance Company Inc., involved a motorist who reported neck, shoulder, and psychological impairments after the March 30, 2025 incident.
• Applying the two-part test from Economical Mutual Insurance Company v. Caughy, the tribunal found refuelling was ordinary automobile use and that falling snow did not break the chain of causation.
• Belair Insurance Company Inc. had denied benefits, arguing the snow did not strike the applicant and attributing injuries to a prior fall.
• This decision, 2026 CanLII 106201 (ON LAT), establishes a precedent that environmental risks common in Ontario winters can be considered part of the risks associated with automobile use.

This ruling significantly broadens the interpretation of what constitutes an 'automobile accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, particularly in cases involving environmental factors during routine vehicle operations.

The Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) recently addressed a claim stemming from an unusual incident at a gas station. On March 30, 2025, a motorist was in the process of refuelling his vehicle when snow and ice unexpectedly fell from an overhead canopy. The applicant, who had stepped away from his vehicle moments before after hearing a noise, subsequently reported sustaining neck and shoulder injuries, in addition to psychological impairments.

Belair Insurance Company Inc. denied accident benefits, asserting that the event did not meet the definition of an "accident" as outlined in the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS). The insurer contended that the falling snow did not directly impact the applicant and further suggested that his shoulder complaints were attributable to a fall over a fence that occurred eight days prior to the gas station incident. However, the tribunal, assessing the evidence on a balance of probabilities, found sufficient grounds to conclude that the applicant did sustain impairments during the gas station incident and that the event might have exacerbated a pre-existing shoulder injury.

In the case of Kroon v Belair Insurance Company Inc., 2026 CanLII 106201 (ON LAT), the tribunal was tasked with determining whether the incident qualified as an "automobile accident" under section 3(1) of the SABS. To make this determination, the LAT applied the well-established two-part test derived from Economical Mutual Insurance Company v. Caughy, 2016 ONCA 226. This test requires an assessment of whether the incident arose from the use or operation of an automobile (the purpose test) and whether that use or operation directly caused the impairments (the causation test).

Regarding the purpose test, there was no dispute between the parties that refuelling a vehicle constitutes an ordinary and well-known activity associated with automobile use. The tribunal concurred, affirming that fuelling a vehicle at a gas station is an integral part of its operation. The more contentious aspect was causation. Belair Insurance argued that the falling snow represented an intervening event, thereby severing the causal link between the automobile's use and the applicant's injuries. However, the tribunal rejected this argument, concluding that snow falling from a gas station canopy is a normal incident of the risks associated with automobile use during Ontario winters and, therefore, did not break the chain of causation. The tribunal further emphasized that refuelling remained the dominant feature of the incident, as the applicant had only moved away from his vehicle seconds before the snow fell. Consequently, the tribunal ruled that the incident qualified as an accident under the SABS, paving the way for further proceedings on the substantive issues of benefit entitlement.

This ruling significantly broadens the interpretation of what constitutes an 'automobile accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, particularly in cases involving environmental factors during routine vehicle operations. The decision in Kroon v Belair SABS falling snow establishes a crucial precedent, indicating that hazards like falling snow from a gas station canopy, which are common in Ontario winters, can be directly linked to automobile use for the purpose of accident benefits claims. This finding is particularly relevant for future gas station canopy accident Ontario cases and clarifies aspects of automobile accident causation SABS. The tribunal's determination that such an event does not break the chain of causation provides a more expansive framework for claimants seeking benefits for injuries sustained from environmental factors during activities like refuelling. However, it is important to note that as of July 1, 2026, significant amendments to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule have made several previously mandatory benefits optional for policies renewed on or after that date. While the initial finding that the incident qualifies as an 'accident' is a pivotal step, the subsequent entitlement to specific benefits will depend on the claimant's policy coverage under the amended SABS. It suggests that insurers may face challenges in denying claims based on environmental occurrences that are deemed normal risks associated with vehicle use, even if the direct impact of the environmental factor on the claimant is not explicitly proven.

This ruling expands the definition of an 'automobile accident' under SABS, providing a precedent for claimants seeking benefits for injuries sustained from environmental factors during routine vehicle use like refuelling. Lawyers should advise clients on the broadened scope of qualifying incidents and prepare to counter insurer arguments regarding causation.

Source: Original reporting via Canadian Lawyer Magazine