Don’t Let a Narrow Definition Backfire on You: Why Unusual Events Can Still Count as Accidents Under the SABS

October 29, 2025

By Laura Bruce

The Licence Appeal Tribunal recently released a decision that offers insight into when an uncommon event, despite its rarity, still qualifies as an “accident” under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

In Sala v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2025 ONLAT 23-011234/AABS, the claimant applied to his insurer, Aviva, for accident benefits stemming from what is a rare occurrence with modern motor vehicles: engine backfire.

The Tribunal ultimately found in favour of the claimant on the issue, holding that the events in question passed both the purpose, causation, but for, intervening act and dominant feature tests.

Background Facts

On November 21, 2019, the claimant was driving on Rutherford Road in Vaughan. While stopped at the intersection of Rutherford and Islington Avenue, a 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee Trackhawk in an adjacent lane emitted a series of loud engine backfires.

The impact of the sound was significant: the claimant’s passenger side window was broken and it allegedly caused him significant hearing-related injuries, including tinnitus, otalgia, vestibular damage and sensorineural hearing loss.

The claimant sought accident benefits from Aviva, arguing that the incident met the definition of “accident” under s. 3 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Aviva denied the claims, arguing that accepting such a definition would widen the definition to include such incidental environmental sounds as those from construction sites or loud car horns. It also denied that there was a causal connection between the backfires and the claimant’s hearing loss, citing the lack of medical evidence and an otolaryngology expert who ascribed the hearing loss to the claimant’s job as a construction worker.

Issues

The claimant sought payment of for hearing aids, totalling $5,822.50, as well as interest and a special award arising from Aviva’s unreasonable decision to withhold payment.

Analysis

The Tribunal first reviewed the definition of “accident” as described in s. 3 of the SABS, which states that an accident is:

“an incident in which the use or operation of an automobile directly causes an impairment”

The Tribunal then cited the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Economical Mutual Insurance Company v. Caughy, 2016 ONCA 226 (CanLII), which sets out the two-part test for determining whether an event meets the definition:

  1. Purpose Test: did the incident arise out of the use or operation of a vehicle?
  2. Causation Test: did the use or operation of a vehicle directly cause the impairment?

The Tribunal also cited the leading case for the purpose test, the Court of Appeal decision in Greenhalgh v. ING Halifax Insurance Company, 2004 ONCA 21045 (CanLII). It states that impairments must arise out of the “ordinary and well-known activities to which automobiles are put”.

In this case the test was satisfied: the claimant was driving his vehicle and was next to a fellow motorist when the incident occurred. Even though the backfires were unexpected, the Ontario Superior Court already established in Davis v. Aviva General Insurance Co., 2024 ONSC 3054 (CanLII) that “use of a motor vehicle” includes a vehicle’s mechanical functions, even when those functions result in unexpected consequences.

The causation test required the Tribunal then to consider whether these “ordinary and well-known activities” directly caused the claimant’s impairments. As the Court of Appeal established in Chisholm v. Liberty Mutual Group, 2002 ONCA 45020 (CanLII), this requires further levels of analysis:

  1. The “But For” Test: would the claimant’s injuries have occurred “but for” the normal use of the vehicle;
  2. The Intervening Act Test: was there some other event that took place that caused the injuries that cannot be said to have been part of the normal use of the vehicle; and
  3. The Dominant Feature Test: was the ordinary and well known activity the most direct cause of the claimant’s injuries?

The But For Test is meant to function as a preliminary filter to exclude the factors that did not affect the outcome and here, there were none. The Tribunal found that, but for the claimant driving his vehicle next to the backfiring Jeep, he would not have sustained his injuries.

The Intervening Act Test, however, considers legal causation – were there any intervening causes of the claimant’s injuries other than the normal use of the vehicle that broke the chain of causation? In this case, the answer was a straightforward “no”. The backfires were a result of the mechanical operation of the Jeep and the sound waves from the backfire were strong enough to shatter the claimant’s window.

Finally, the Dominant Feature Test was also satisfied. The claimant relied on the Superior Court case of Dittmann v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2016 ONSC 6429 (CanLII), where a claimant who sustained injuries from a cup of coffee spilled inside his vehicle. Relying on the decision in Downer v. The Personal Insurance Co., 2012 ONCA 302 (CanLII), Aviva countered that, while the claimant was inside his vehicle, that location was not sufficient to establish causation.

The Tribunal preferred the claimant’s argument. In Downer, the claimant was assaulted at a gas station and fled in his vehicle. Although he was in proximity to his vehicle when he was injured, the Court found that the assault was the dominant feature of his injuries and not the use of his vehicle. In this case, the Tribunal found that the predominant feature of the claimant’s injuries was the exposure to soundwaves emitted by the operation of the nearby Jeep, as it backfired.

Conclusion

Aviva was ultimately successful on late filing grounds. However, this decision still offers valuable insight for insurers when deciding whether to contest whether the incident giving rise to a claimant’s injuries will meet the definition of an “accident” under the SABS. Insurers should be careful to look at the circumstances. Even unusual or unexpected events can be said to meet the definition if:

  • The incident arose from the ordinary and well-known use of a vehicle;
  • Using the vehicle directly caused the injuries;
  • The claimant would not have been injured if they were not using the vehicle;
  • There were no intervening acts that broke the chain of causation; and
  • It was the use of the vehicle, and not a prior or subsequent event, caused the claimant to sustain the injuries.