Ontario Court Upholds High Bar for Family Dependency Insurance Claims

Layla Abdel Hamad will pay $2,500 in costs to Security National Insurance Company after an Ontario court rejected her claim for accident benefits through a relative's auto insurance policy. The Divisional Court upheld a ruling that Hamad did not qualify as an 'insured person' under the policy maintained by her sister-in-law, Sireen Rahhal.

Under section 3(1)(a) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, a person can qualify as an insured person if they are a dependant of the named insured or their spouse. Hamad, who did not live with Rahhal and was not a listed driver, argued she was principally dependent on Rahhal and her brother for financial support and care.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) found that while thes families were close and Rahhal and her spouse provided $1,500 to $2,000 a month plus groceries and incidentals, this mutual family support did not rise to the level of principal dependence. Banking records showed Hamad received an average of $4,153.43 per month of government assistance, which alone cleared the 50%-plus-one threshold for dependency.

Her average monthly expenses were between $5,475.31 and $8,025.31 in the year leading up to the accident. The Divisional Court found no error of law in the LAT's ruling, and the claim for accident benefits was dismissed.