An impaired driver crashed into her backyard, but Ontario's accident benefits tribunal ruled the shaken homeowner was not in an "accident" - and denied her claim.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal released its decision on June 23, 2026, in a statutory accident benefits dispute that turned on a single question - what counts as an "accident."
The claimant was at her home with her spouse and three children on a cold-weather evening in November 2024 when she heard a loud noise, ran to her kitchen window, and saw that a vehicle had crashed into her backyard. She began screaming and shaking, and called her spouse as her children screamed. She called police, paramedics and firefighters, who attended the scene. The third-party driver was arrested for being under the influence. Days later, she saw her family physician for mental health reactions and stress-related back pain, was prescribed anti-anxiety medication, and was directed to over-the-counter pain relief and physiotherapy.
She sought benefits from Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, asking to be removed from the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline limit and to fund a psychological assessment, psychological services and a functional capacity assessment, plus interest. Aviva denied coverage, arguing the incident was not an "accident" under the Schedule.
Adjudicator Melanie Malach applied the two-part test from the Court of Appeal decision in Economical Mutual Insurance Company v. Caughy. The purpose test was met - driving a vehicle is an ordinary activity to which automobiles are put. The causation test, which asks whether the use or operation of a vehicle directly caused the impairment, was the problem.
Malach found it did not. On the evidence, the claimant did not see the crash. She ran to her window after hearing a noise and saw what was left behind. That distinction proved decisive. "Witnessing the aftermath of an incident is not the same as being involved," she wrote, finding the claimant temporally and proximally disconnected from the collision.
The evidentiary record shaped the outcome. Malach noted the only account of how the incident occurred came from a psychological report, and that the claimant's later submissions - that the vehicle's engine was still running and moving toward her, and that the driver nearly struck her - did not appear in that report. Submissions are not evidence, she wrote, giving more weight to the account prepared shortly after the event.
Aviva relied on decisions including Travis v. Aviva and Jazayeri v. Economical, where injuries tied to witnessing an incident or its aftermath were found not to arise directly from the use of a vehicle. The claimant pointed to five tribunal decisions involving no direct contact, but Malach found each turned on different facts - claimants who slipped on ice, fell, or were struck - none involving injuries caused by the aftermath.
Malach acknowledged the experience was frightening. Even so, she found the claimant had not proven her injuries flowed directly from the use or operation of a vehicle. Because there was no "accident," the substantive claims were not reached, and the application was dismissed.
The tribunal noted established jurisprudence that an insurer should not be responsible for impairments arising out of the aftermath of an incident that has already occurred.
