A food delivery driver's icy sidewalk fall did not count as a vehicle accident, Ontario's tribunal has confirmed.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal has dismissed a reconsideration request from a delivery driver who broke his ankle after leaving his parked vehicle, upholding a finding with direct relevance for insurers and claims professionals handling delivery-related accident benefits claims.
The dispute arose after the applicant, a food delivery driver, parked on the north side of an urban street on January 18, 2025, retrieved the delivery package from his trunk, closed the trunk, and crossed to the south side. Walking along the sidewalk toward the drop-off point, he slipped on an uneven, icy surface, breaking his ankle and sustaining other injuries. He could not complete the delivery.
In a preliminary issue decision released April 7, 2026, the Tribunal found the applicant was not involved in an "accident" as defined by section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, dismissing his application for accident benefits against Definity Insurance Company.
The Tribunal applied the two-part test from Economical Mutual Insurance Company v. Caughy, 2016 ONCA 226: the purpose test, asking whether the incident arose from the use or operation of a vehicle, and the causation test, asking whether that use or operation directly caused the impairment.
On the purpose test, the Tribunal accepted that food delivery is an ordinary and well-known use of a vehicle, extending to transporting and retrieving the package. But it found that use ends once the driver leaves the parked vehicle, holding that "the use of a vehicle for food delivery ends once that process is complete." The causation test failed too: the slip and fall on the icy surface broke the chain of causation between any vehicle use and the applicant's injuries.
The applicant sought reconsideration under Rule 18.2(b) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023, arguing the Tribunal erred in both stages of the test and drew an illogical distinction from Davis v. Aviva General Insurance Co., 2024 ONSC 3054, a case involving a different insured who slipped on ice while approaching her vehicle with her key fob in hand.
Vice-Chair Craig Mazerolle dismissed the reconsideration request, finding Davis distinguishable because that insured was still actively engaged with her vehicle when she fell, unlike the applicant, who had already left his parked vehicle and was not operating any part of it. The Tribunal held that disagreement with the outcome, or with how the adjudicator weighed the case law, does not establish the legal error required under Rule 18.2(b).
For claims professionals, the decision reinforces where coverage exposure ends in delivery-related accident benefits claims: once a driver retrieves the goods and leaves the parked vehicle, injuries during the on-foot portion of a delivery fall outside the definition of an "accident."
Definity had also sought costs, arguing the reconsideration request amounted to an improper attempt to relitigate the preliminary hearing. The Tribunal dismissed that request as well, finding the threshold under Rule 19.1 - requiring unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or bad-faith conduct - was not met. Rule 18.1 gives all parties the right to seek reconsideration, and exercising that right was not grounds for a costs order.
The reconsideration decision was released July 30, 2026.
