Poisson v. Intact 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
Around 4:30 a.m. on June 29, 2023, Wilfred Poisson and his partner were asleep when a pick-up truck drove into the ground floor of their home. Smoke alarms, strobe lights and a voice alert repeating "Fire" went off. He found the truck lodged in the wall and a person lying still on the driveway whom he feared was dead, and he called 911. He claimed psychological-treatment benefits under his own policy. Intact refused: in its view he was neither an insured person nor involved in an accident under the SABS, since his distress came from the aftermath and from independent causes such as the alarms and being displaced from the house.
What the Court Decided
Adjudicator Malach applied the two-part test from Economical v. Caughy, which asks about purpose and causation. The event arose from the use or operation of a car, and the impairment resulted from the truck's impact on the house, not from arriving at a scene afterwards, which is what the decisions relied on by Intact were about. Without the truck entering the home there would have been no injury, and nothing interrupted the chain of events: collision, alarms, lights and panic followed one another without a break. Because the injury came from the accident itself, he was "involved" under section 3(1)(a)(i) of the SABS. This was a ruling on that preliminary issue only; whether he is entitled to the benefits claimed goes to a further hearing.
Does This Affect You?
- ✓You suffered psychological harm when a vehicle struck your home.
- ✓An insurer says you only witnessed the aftermath of an accident.
- ✓You are unsure whether you count as being "involved" in an accident.
Key Takeaways
- Presence at the moment of impact can distinguish a claim from "aftermath witness" cases.
- The Caughy purpose and causation test is applied to unusual fact patterns.
- An uninterrupted chain of events from the crash can support psychological injury benefits.