⚠️ Ontario accident benefits changed July 1, 2026 — find out how this affects your claim →
CASE CENTRE · PERSONAL INJURY · ACCIDENT BENEFITS & LAT

Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company v. Okenge

2026 ONSC 1189 Divisional Court February 27, 2026
⚠ Informational Purposes Only — Not Legal Advice

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.

In short: A young athlete left paralysed in a Nebraska crash was held to depend mainly on his sister in Ottawa, making him insured under her policy. The Divisional Court rejected Certas's appeal and judicial review.

The Facts

Stephane Okenge came from Uganda to Ottawa at 14 on a basketball scholarship and lived with his older sister Gisele for roughly three months before the academy required him to move into billet housing. He later studied in Oklahoma and Nebraska, staying with host families or in student housing, but went back to his sister's home whenever school was out, and her address stayed his permanent one. On October 23, 2022, at age 19, a collision in Nebraska left him a tetraplegic. He owned no car or policy, so he claimed under his sister's Certas policy, which Certas refused on the footing that he lived independently in the United States on scholarships.

What the Court Decided

LAT Adjudicator Malach held that he depended principally on his sister for care and was therefore an insured person, and refused Certas's reconsideration request. The Divisional Court dismissed Certas's appeal and its judicial review. An appeal from the LAT is limited to questions of law, and Certas's complaint about how the legal test was applied to the facts was a question of mixed fact and law that could not be appealed; the decision was in any case reasonable on the evidence. The court also rejected the idea that dependency for care is confined to physical or mental vulnerability: emotional, social, educational and practical support during a life transition can count.

Does This Affect You?

  • ✓A family member lives away for school or work but relies on you or another relative for care and support.
  • ✓An insurer says living away or receiving scholarships ends dependency.
  • ✓You are seeking accident benefits under a relative's policy.

Key Takeaways

  1. Dependency is assessed on the relationship as a whole, not just residence or finances.
  2. "Care" can include emotional, social and practical support, not just medical needs.
  3. Mixed questions of fact and law are not appealable from the LAT.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can someone living abroad still be dependent on a relative?
Yes — the question is whether looking at the relationship as a whole they remain principally dependent for care.
Is physical vulnerability required?
No — the court rejected narrowing dependency for care to physical or mental vulnerability.