A Saskatchewan man's fight for no-fault benefits collapsed after he sued McDonald's over spilled tea, then missed SGI's filing deadline.
The appellant was a passenger in a vehicle that had left a McDonald's drive-through on August 22, 2022, when hot tea spilled on his left leg during a turn several minutes later, causing burns he said affected his ability to work and carry out daily activities.
He then filed a negligence lawsuit against McDonald's in the Court of King's Bench. McDonald's argued the action was barred under section 40.1 of Saskatchewan's Automobile Accident Insurance Act, which replaces tort claims for motor vehicle injuries with no-fault benefits through Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI).
SGI's senior counsel told his lawyer in May 2024 that a benefits claim could still be filed, noting claimants generally have two years from the date of an accident to apply. The Court of King's Bench ruled on January 28, 2025 that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case against McDonald's because of section 40.1.
By the time he reported his injury to SGI, on February 19, 2025, about two and a half years had passed since the accident. He submitted a formal application a week later, and SGI denied the claim, citing section 164 of the Act, which sets a two-year limitation period for benefit applications.
Two appeals followed, both arguing SGI never gave him a chance to explain the delay. SGI issued a second decision on September 12, 2025, again denying the claim. It found the appellant had constructive knowledge of his right to claim, noting SGI's counsel had already told his lawyer about the deadline months before it expired.
He did not attend his hearing before the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission on August 18, 2026, despite being properly served with notice in June. Chair Tom Schonhoffer chose to decide the case on its merits rather than dismiss it outright, citing the unusual facts involved, but without the appellant's testimony there was no evidence to support a reasonable excuse for the delay under section 164(5) of the Act.
There was very little judicial guidance on section 40.1 before the King's Bench ruling, the Commission noted; the appellant has said he did not realize his injury was covered by SGI's no-fault scheme until after that ruling.
Both appeals were dismissed and no costs were ordered against the appellant. The Commission did note some sympathy for his confusion, observing that most people would not expect a spilled drink in a moving vehicle to count as "bodily injury caused by a motor vehicle" - but said that sympathy carried little weight without evidence.
