In two unanimous decisions released October 19, 2007, the Supreme Court has reversed the majority position of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Herbison and Vytlingam and concluded that the use of the words “directly or indirectly” in section 239 (1) of the Insurance Act and the Family Protection Endorsement OPCF 44R does not eliminate the requirement of an unbroken chain of causation. Recognizing that the legislation in question is automobile insurance, the Court emphasized that merely fortuitous or “but for” causation is not sufficient and there must be an unbroken chain of causation linking the conduct of the motorist as a motorist to the injuries in respect of which the claim is made. In doing so, the court has endorsed a less technical and more common sense approach to this issue.

type Auto Insurance Update - October 2007