5,109
edits
Difference between revisions of "ICBC and Compulsory Coverage (12:X)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
ICBC and Compulsory Coverage (12:X) (view source)
Revision as of 17:45, 9 August 2021
, 17:45, 9 August 2021→1. What are “No-Fault” Benefits?
| Line 211: | Line 211: | ||
In [http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1995/1995canlii66/1995canlii66.html?autocompleteStr=amos%20v&autocompletePos=1 ''Amos v ICBC''], [1995] 3 SCR 405, 1995 CanLII 66 (SCC), the Supreme Court of Canada laid out a two-part test for determining if death or injury falls within the scope of s 79(1). The following must be met: | In [http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1995/1995canlii66/1995canlii66.html?autocompleteStr=amos%20v&autocompletePos=1 ''Amos v ICBC''], [1995] 3 SCR 405, 1995 CanLII 66 (SCC), the Supreme Court of Canada laid out a two-part test for determining if death or injury falls within the scope of s 79(1). The following must be met: | ||
<blockquote> a) the accident must result from the ordinary and well-known activities to which automobiles are put; and | <blockquote> a) the accident must result from the ordinary and well-known activities to which automobiles are put; and </blockquote> | ||
b) there must be some nexus or causal relationship (not necessarily a direct or proximate causal relationship) between the plaintiff’s injuries and the owner’s ownership, use, or operation of his or her vehicle. That is, the connection between the injuries and the ownership, use, or operation of the vehicle must not be merely incidental or fortuitous. </blockquote> | <blockquote> b) there must be some nexus or causal relationship (not necessarily a direct or proximate causal relationship) between the plaintiff’s injuries and the owner’s ownership, use, or operation of his or her vehicle. That is, the connection between the injuries and the ownership, use, or operation of the vehicle must not be merely incidental or fortuitous. </blockquote> | ||
''Amos'' reversed the BC Court of Appeal judgment and held that the plaintiff’s injuries were causally connected to the ownership and use of his vehicle. The plaintiff was shot while driving away from a gang who was trying to gain entry into his motor vehicle. However, Major J. noted that if the gunshots had been truly random and not causally connected to the plaintiff’s ownership of the vehicle then his injuries would not have been covered under s 79(1). | ''Amos'' reversed the BC Court of Appeal judgment and held that the plaintiff’s injuries were causally connected to the ownership and use of his vehicle. The plaintiff was shot while driving away from a gang who was trying to gain entry into his motor vehicle. However, Major J. noted that if the gunshots had been truly random and not causally connected to the plaintiff’s ownership of the vehicle then his injuries would not have been covered under s 79(1). | ||
