Focus On

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE - Accident benefits - Income replacement

Thursday, May 04, 2017 @ 8:30 AM  


Lexis Advance® Quicklaw®
Application by Sandulak for leave to appeal a decision by the Automobile Injury Compensation Appeal Commission (Commission). The applicant was a commercial truck driver. He missed several weeks of work following the theft of his vehicle. He consequently sought income replacement indemnity benefits based on a loss of income caused by business disruption. An internal review officer of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (MPIC) denied the claim on the basis the applicant did not suffer any bodily injuries. The applicant appealed to the Commission. He argued he was entitled to the benefits claimed. Alternatively, he raised Charter and human rights arguments in favour of his claim. The Commission dismissed the appeal and confirmed the MPIC officer's decision. The Commission found the applicant clearly did not fall within the benefit provisions, as he had not suffered bodily injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The Commission gave extensive reasons explaining why the Charter and human rights principles were not engaged. The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

HELD: Application dismissed. There was no arguable merit to the ground of appeal alleging the Commission erred in its benefit entitlement findings. The applicant was neither involved in an accident, nor injured. There was no merit to the ground of appeal alleging the Commission erred in finding no evidence to establish the applicant suffered differential treatment or discrimination as a non-injured commercial driver. There was no basis for finding the applicant's status as a non-injured commercial driver was deserving of protection under s. 15 of the Charter. Leave to appeal was accordingly denied.

Sandulak v. Manitoba Public Insurance, [2017] M.J. No. 108, Manitoba Court of Appeal, R.J.F. Chartier C.J.M., April 12, 2017. Digest No. TLD-May12017009