The recent LAT decision in Voll v. Definity Insurance Company, 2026 CanLII 8168, provides a clear example of how the Tribunal continues to interpret the definition of “accident” under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) when a vehicle’s use is only incidentally connected to an injury.
The Facts
In Voll, a 75‑year‑old woman was walking along a paved park path when a dog suddenly leapt through the open window of a parked van and attacked her. The van’s owner was asleep inside at the time. The applicant sustained significant injuries, including a deep laceration and partial amputation of her right small finger, a bite wound to her forearm, and ongoing functional impairment of her dominant hand.
The issue before the Tribunal was not the presence of injury, but whether the incident qualified as an “accident” under the SABS, defined as an impairment arising directly from the use or operation of an automobile. The applicant argued that the dog was a chattel being transported or stored in the vehicle and that her injury therefore arose from the vehicle’s use.
The Decision
The Tribunal declined to engage with the property‑law argument and instead applied the well‑established two‑part test from Economical Mutual Insurance Company v. Caughy, 2016 ONCA 226, addressing purpose and causation.
On the purpose element, the Tribunal agreed that transporting a family pet is a normal and expected use of a vehicle. However, at the time of the attack, the dog had exited the vehicle and was no longer being transported or stored. Once the animal jumped through the window, the vehicle’s connection to the subsequent events had effectively ended.
With respect to causation, the Tribunal found that the dog’s independent act of jumping and attacking was the dominant cause of the injury. This intervening act broke any chain of causation between the use of the vehicle and the applicant’s injuries.
The claim also failed for late filing. The OCF‑1 was submitted seven months after the incident. The applicant argued that she had not initially realized her injuries might qualify under the SABS definition of “accident.” The Tribunal reaffirmed that ignorance of the law is not a reasonable excuse, unsworn submissions are not evidence, and a delay of seven months is significant and prejudicial to the insurer. As a result, section 55 of the Schedule barred the claim.
Key Takeaways
The decision reinforces two important principles: first, that the vehicle must play more than a contextual role in causing injury for a claim to qualify under the SABS; and second, that strict adherence to filing deadlines remains critical, regardless of the complexity of the claim.
Contact Us
At Flaherty McCarthy LLP, our insurance defence lawyers regularly represent insurers and their insureds in accident benefits and bodily injury matters before the LAT and Ontario courts. We provide strategic, practical, and timely legal advice to help clients navigate complex coverage disputes and defend claims effectively.
