Ontario (Government and Consumer Services) v. Gore Mutual Insurance Company
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
On December 26, 2013, three people went snowmobiling together. Christopher Ugulini and his fiancée, Lindsay Lance, rode his uninsured snowmobile and his brother Casey rode a snowmobile insured by Gore Mutual. They were travelling too fast on a route where snowmobiling was not allowed, with the uninsured machine in front. Both machines struck a tree lying across the trail within roughly a second of each other, and the two brothers died. Ms. Lance survived and claimed accident benefits, and a death benefit claim was made for Christopher. Nobody doubted benefits were owed. The only question was who should pay, Gore or the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund. An arbitrator decided the Fund was responsible, reasoning that the injuries on the lead machine would have happened even if Casey had not been following. A Superior Court judge reversed, and Gore appealed.
What the Court Decided
The Court of Appeal dismissed Gore's appeal. Under section 268(2) of the Insurance Act the priority ladder runs from the occupant's own insurer, to the insurer of the vehicle occupied, to the insurer of any other automobile involved in the incident, and last to the Fund. The only live rung was the third. The court held that the arbitrator had made causation a required part of what it means for another vehicle to be involved, and that this was an error of law, so the matter was properly reviewable on appeal. Once causation was removed from the analysis, the court agreed that the time, place and shared participation in the same ride were enough: two impacts, but one incident. Gore was also ordered to pay $10,000 in costs to the Fund. The court did not decide whether the list of involvement factors used in other cases is the right test.
The Fund is the payer of last resort, and this case shows how the priority ladder keeps benefits with private insurers wherever a vehicle covered by them is genuinely connected to the event. For people injured in an uninsured vehicle or in a hit-and-run involving several vehicles, it means the Fund is not the first stop if another insured vehicle was part of the same incident. It is about who pays accident benefits, not about the amount or about suing the at-fault driver.
Does This Affect You?
- ✓You were an occupant of an uninsured vehicle injured in a multi-vehicle incident.
- ✓An insurer is arguing that another vehicle was too remote to be responsible for your benefits.
- ✓You are waiting for accident benefits while insurers and the Fund argue about who must pay.
Key Takeaways
- A vehicle does not have to touch yours or cause the crash to count as involved in the incident for the priority rules.
- The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund pays accident benefits only if no insurer higher on the ladder is responsible.
- Decisions about priority are made between insurers, but the injured person should be paid while they are sorted out.