An uninsured driver's family tried to claim accident benefits through a relative's auto policy. Ontario's Divisional Court said no - and the reasoning matters.
In a decision released April 2, 2026, the court upheld the Licence Appeal Tribunal's ruling that Layla Abdel Hamad did not qualify as an "insured person" under her sister-in-law's auto insurance policy, shutting the door on a dependency argument that claims professionals across Ontario will recognize.
The facts are straightforward. Hamad's son was involved in a vehicular accident on August 2, 2021. He did not have car insurance. Hamad and her son turned to a policy maintained by Sireen Rahhal, the spouse of Hamad's brother and the named insured on the policy. Neither Hamad nor her son lived with Rahhal, and neither was listed as a specified driver.
That left one path to coverage: proving dependency.
Under section 3(1)(a) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, a dependant of the named insured or of the named insured's spouse can qualify as an insured person. Hamad argued she was principally dependent on Rahhal and her brother for financial support and care.
The LAT was not persuaded. It applied both a "big picture" relational analysis and a mathematical test rooted in the frameworks from Miller v. Safeco Insurance Co. of America and Allstate Insurance v. ING Insurance et al.
On the relational side, the tribunal accepted that the families were close. Hamad helped look after Rahhal's three children. Rahhal and her spouse helped Hamad financially with her lease and incidentals for her children. Hamad's brother provided male guidance for her children. But the LAT found that this kind of mutual family support did not rise to the level of principal dependence.
The numbers told a similar story. Banking records showed Hamad received an average of $4,153.43 per month from government assistance, against average monthly expenses of approximately $5,475.31 in the year leading up to the accident. Even when lease payments not captured in her bank records were factored in — pushing expenses to $8,025.31 - the named insured and her spouse provided only $1,500.00 to $2,000.00 a month, plus a few hundred dollars for groceries and incidentals for the children. Government assistance alone cleared the 50%-plus-one threshold. The family's contributions, while real, were not enough.
The Divisional Court agreed, finding no error of law. It also rejected the argument that the LAT breached procedural fairness by resolving the question through written submissions rather than an oral hearing.
The appeal and application for judicial review were dismissed, with costs of $2,500 payable to Security National Insurance Company.
For adjusters and brokers, the takeaway is practical. When extended family members seek accident benefits through a relative's policy, the dependency bar remains high - and informal arrangements, no matter how genuine, will not clear it without concrete, documented evidence of principal financial reliance.
