Ontario's Divisional Court says a raised manhole cover can be an "object" a transit bus collides with under the Insurance Act's accident benefits exception.
A passenger on a Toronto Transit Commission bus was thrown from her seat when the bus drove over a manhole cover sitting higher than the surrounding road because of nearby construction. She suffered catastrophic injuries and applied for statutory accident benefits under the Insurance Act.
Her insurer, Toronto Transit Commission Insurance Company Ltd. (TTCIC), denied the claim under section 268(1.1) of the Act, which excludes public transit passengers from statutory accident benefits unless the transit vehicle collided with another automobile or object. TTCIC argued the manhole cover was not an "object" within the meaning of the exception, and that the bus's contact with it was not a "collision."
The Licence Appeal Tribunal rejected that position. TTCIC appealed the ruling and sought judicial review of both the tribunal's original decision and its reconsideration decision.
Before the Divisional Court, the insurer argued the tribunal had no evidentiary basis to find the manhole cover was a "temporary, independent feature" that was no longer seamlessly integrated with the road surface. Its position was that the only finding available was that a raised manhole cover is an ordinary part of the road that vehicles are expected to drive over.
The panel was not persuaded. Even without a specific measurement of how far the cover protruded, it found ample evidence supporting the tribunal's conclusion that the protrusion was significant - including the bus's speed of 57 km/h, the fact the passenger was thrown from her seat, and video evidence recorded inside the bus.
On the appeal itself, limited to questions of law, TTCIC argued the tribunal erred by treating collision and object as separate questions. The panel disagreed, finding the two are distinct terms with different meanings, and that it was open to the tribunal - based on its factual findings - to conclude the manhole cover was an object.
TTCIC also argued the tribunal erred by factoring in the bus's speed when assessing whether a collision occurred, and by requiring something beyond a minimal impact. The court found no error, noting the force of the impact was a function of the bus's speed, and did not decide whether speed or force will always be relevant to that question.
Both the appeal and the judicial review application were dismissed. Costs of $7,500, inclusive of taxes and disbursements, were ordered against TTCIC, payable to the passenger, in line with an agreement between the parties. The decision is dated August 14, 2026.
