An application by the Plaintiff for determinations of questions of law arising from a claim to recover the difference between the amount that would have been awarded as damages at common law versus the amount he had received under the no fault scheme.
Acton v. Britannia (Rural Municipality, No. 502), March 9, 2010, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, G.N. Allbright J.
The Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident in which he sustained catastrophic injuries. As a result, the Plaintiff received benefits under the no fault provisions of the Automobile Accident Insurance Act, R.S.S., 1978, c. A-35 (the “Act”). This included income replacement benefits, living assistance benefits and reimbursement for certain expenses. The amount of the benefits the Plaintiff received under the no fault provisions were less than the maximum entitlement under the Act. The Plaintiff commenced an action claiming for the difference between the amount he would have been awarded as damages at common law and the amount he had been paid and would continue to be paid under the Act. It is in relation to that claim the Plaintiff sought a determination of law with respect to a number of issues. Firstly, the Court was asked to assess whether a claim for “economic loss” could be pursued pursuant to s. 103(1)(a)(iii) of the Act where the benefits of Division 3 and Division 7 do not and will not exceed the maximum benefits prescribed in s. 112(3) of the Act. The Court answered that question in the negative. The aggregate limit for expenses must be exceeded before the right to claim for economic losses will arise. The claims for those losses are limited to the scope of Part VIII of the Act. The Court rejected the argument that the Plaintiff had a right to claim for economic losses if any portion of his claim was not paid for by the insurer. The Plaintiff also sought to recover benefits from the Defendants which were not paid by the Insurer. The Court held that the appropriate mechanism to seek reimbursement for such additional costs was within the appeal provisions in the legislation. The Court found that the Plaintiff was not in a position to pursue a benefit to fund a substitute worker to carry out the work on his farm. He had opted to receive an income replacement benefit based upon his employment earnings rather than pursuing a benefit to fund a substitute worker. This case was originally summarized by Kim Yee and edited by David Pilley of Harper Grey LLP.
Similar Posts:
- Bad faith claims may be severed from the underlying entitlement action.
- Health providers may be liable for negligently treating people injured in automobile accidents in Ontario.
- Aggravated damages do not constitute a new cause of action.
- In British Columbia the amount of vehicle damage must be pursued internally at ICBC
- Allegations of faulty workmanship may be covered by a general liablity policy
