Archive for November 2015
A judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled that a change to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) which became effective on February 1, 2014, does not apply to accidents prior to this date.
In the decision David v Wawanesa Mutal Insurance Company [2015 ONSC 6624], Quinlan J. considered whether Section 2 of Ontario Regulation 347/13 applies to accidents prior to February 1, 2014, when this regulation came into force.
In September of 2010 a change to the SABS allowed for non-professionals (e.g., family or friends) to be compensated for the attendant care that was provided to a person injured in a motor vehicle accident only if that non-professional suffered an “economic loss”. The term “economic loss” was not defined. The Ontario Court of Appeal later ruled, in its decision on Henry v Gore Mutual Insurance, that if a non-professional suffered an economic loss, they were entitled to the full amount of the monthly attendant care needs (Form 1) and that reimbursement was not limited to the actual amount of the economic loss. In other words, once a non-professional established that an economic loss had been demonstrated, the full amount of attendant care benefit was payable as assessed.
In December of 2013 the Government of Ontario filed Ontario Regulation 347/13 to limit the amount of compensation for a non-professional to the actual amount of the economic loss sustained. This regulation went into effect on February 1, 2014. The regulation is silent on whether or not it is retroactive.
Quinlan J. states as follows:
 Therefore, I accept the plaintiff’s position that attendant care benefits are a contractual right to which an injured person is entitled. The contract of insurance between an insured and insurer creates rights and obligations, including the right to attendant care benefits. As such, despite the fact that SABS are a government-legislated scheme, the treatment of other benefits bestowed by legislation and cases dealing with those benefits do not assist in deciding the issue before me.
 The fact that legislation is remedial does not necessarily mean that it is intended to apply retrospectively (R. v. Evans, 2015 BCCA 46 (CanLII), 321 C.C.C. (3d) 130 at para. 33). As the Court of Appeal held at para. 60 of R. v. Bengy, 2015 ONCA 397 (CanLII), 325 C.C.C. (3d) 22, if the need for immediate reform of the law were so pressing, why would the legislature not have explicitly made the law retrospective? There is nothing in the record, including the explanatory notes, that demonstrates a clear legislative intent that the amendment is to apply retrospectively.
 Accordingly, the presumption has not been rebutted and therefore applies. I find that the plaintiff has a vested right to payment of the attendant care benefit to which she was entitled on the date of her accident.
The decision can be read in its entirety by clicking on the link below: