Ontario Superior Court: Bus Hitting Manhole Cover is Collision for Accident Benefits

• A Toronto Transit Commission bus collided with a raised manhole cover, throwing a passenger from her seat.
• The Licence Appeal Tribunal initially ruled in favour of the passenger's claim for statutory accident benefits.
• The Ontario Superior Court dismissed the insurer's appeal and affirmed the tribunal's decision.
• This case sets a precedent for insurers to consider the impact of protruding road features on accident benefit claims.
• Lawyers should advise clients to carefully assess incidents involving public transit vehicles.

The court found it unnecessary to address whether the vehicle's speed and the degree of force were always relevant factors when ruling on whether a 'collision' had happened under s. 268(1.1).

A bus passenger, Janes, was thrown from her seat when a Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus drove over a raised manhole cover on the roadway. The incident occurred during ongoing construction that had elevated the manhole cover above the road's surface. As a result of the impact, Janes sustained catastrophic injuries and applied for statutory accident benefits under s. 268(1) of Ontario's Insurance Act, 1990. However, the Toronto Transit Commission Insurance Company Ltd. (TTCIC), the insurer, denied her request, citing an exception in s. 268(1.1) that excludes public transit vehicles from collision-related accident benefits if they do not collide with another automobile or object during the incident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal initially ruled in Janes' favour, finding that the manhole cover was an 'object' and that there had been a 'collision.' The TTCIC appealed this decision, arguing that the raised manhole cover was merely an ordinary part of the road and not a separate object. They also claimed that the tribunal erred in considering the bus speed and force of impact when determining whether a collision occurred.

The Ontario Superior Court ultimately dismissed the TTCIC's appeal and judicial review application, affirming the Licence Appeal Tribunal's decision.

This case revolves around the interpretation of s. 268(1) and (1.1) of Ontario's Insurance Act, 1990. Section 268(1) provides for statutory accident benefits, while s. 268(1.1) contains an exception that excludes public transit vehicles from collision-related benefits if they do not collide with another automobile or object during the incident. The key issue in this case was whether the raised manhole cover constituted an 'object' and whether there had been a 'collision' under these provisions.

The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the impact of protruding road features on accident benefit claims. Insurers must now take into account the potential for public transit vehicles to collide with objects such as manhole covers, which can lead to catastrophic injuries and resulting claims for benefits.

This decision sets a precedent for insurers to consider the impact of protruding road features on accident benefit claims. Lawyers should advise clients to carefully assess the circumstances surrounding any incident involving public transit vehicles, as this may affect their eligibility for benefits under s. 268(1) and (1.1). The court's ruling also underscores the need for clear communication between insurers, tribunals, and courts regarding the interpretation of relevant legislation.

The outcome of this case has significant implications for individuals who rely on public transit and may be involved in incidents involving protruding road features. It is essential that they understand their rights and options under Ontario's Insurance Act and seek proper advice to ensure they receive the benefits they are entitled to.

This decision sets a precedent for insurers to consider the impact of protruding road features on accident benefit claims, and lawyers should advise clients to carefully assess the circumstances surrounding any incident involving public transit vehicles.

Source: Original reporting via Ontario Superior Court decision