Intact Insurance Company v. Carpenter
This page is a summary and commentary on a publicly available court decision, written for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship with Azimi Law, regardless of how specific or applicable it may seem to your situation.
This summary may be incomplete, simplified, or not reflect the most current state of the law — the decision may be appealed, distinguished, or overtaken by later rulings. Independently verify this case against the official decision before relying on it. Nothing here guarantees the outcome of any other matter, including yours.
Do not rely on this page to make decisions about your own situation. Consult a licensed lawyer, or contact Azimi Law to discuss your situation directly.
The Facts
In 2020 the claimant, Carpenter, was struck by a Caterpillar wheel loader driving along a municipal road on its way to a snow-clearing job. Carpenter claimed statutory accident benefits from Intact, which refused on the basis that a wheel loader is not an 'automobile', so the event did not qualify as an 'accident' under the Schedule. Before the Licence Appeal Tribunal, both sides proceeded on the footing that the first two parts of the three-part test for what counts as an automobile did not apply; the claimant conceded that a wheel loader is not ordinarily thought of as an automobile, and the argument centred on the third part. The Tribunal nonetheless decided the question under the first part, finding the machine was an automobile because it travelled on roads, had steering, lights and a seatbelt and could reach road speeds. A reconsideration step did not change the outcome, and Intact appealed to the Divisional Court.
What the Court Decided
The Divisional Court allowed Intact's appeal, set aside the original and reconsideration decisions and sent the matter back to the Tribunal for a hearing before a different adjudicator. Its reasoning concerned fairness, not the merits. A tribunal may decline to accept a concession by the parties or choose a different route to the answer, but if it does so it must first tell them and give them a real chance to respond. Here the parties had no notice that the case might turn on the first part of the test, so they never made submissions or called evidence on it. Because the appeal was resolved on that ground, the court left the underlying question — whether a wheel loader is an automobile for SABS purposes — to be answered at the rehearing.
Does This Affect You?
- ✓You won at the Licence Appeal Tribunal and the insurer is appealing the result.
- ✓The Tribunal's reasons rely on an issue that neither side argued at the hearing.
- ✓You want to know when a tribunal decision can be set aside for unfairness without the merits being decided.
Key Takeaways
- A tribunal cannot base its decision on a point the parties treated as irrelevant without first giving them notice and a chance to speak to it.
- Procedural fairness can succeed as a ground of appeal even where the court says nothing about who is right on the substance.
- A win at the Tribunal can be undone on appeal, in which case the claim is usually heard again by a different adjudicator.