Divisional Court says man with tetraplegia after accident depended on his sister

The Ontario Divisional Court has dismissed an appeal against findings that a man, rendered tetraplegic after a vehicular collision, principally depended on his sister for care and thus qualified as an insured person under her automobile insurance policy. 

Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company v. Okenge, 2026 ONSC 1189, revolved around Stephane, who initially resided in Uganda with his mother. When he was 14, he moved to Ottawa to attend a basketball academy on a scholarship. 

Stephane lived in the apartment of his elder sister Gisele for three months. Pursuant to the academy’s policy for scholarship students, once classes commenced, he lodged with a local family while continuing to spend significant time with his sister. 

Stephane then moved to Oklahoma for high school on a basketball scholarship. While there, he lodged with another family. 

Stephane then went to York University in Nebraska, again on a basketball scholarship. He stayed with Gisele over the holidays, in the summer, while undergoing a medical procedure, and during a portion of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

At 19 years old, while living in a university student residence in Nebraska, Stephane sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident in the US on Oct. 23, 2022. He did not have his own vehicle or automobile insurance policy. 

Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company, Gisele’s automobile insurer, denied a statutory accident benefits claim filed on Stephane’s behalf. Certas did not consider him an insured person under his sister’s insurance policy. 

On Apr. 22, 2025, an adjudicator of the Licence Appeal Tribunal determined that Stephane was an insured person under Gisele’s policy because he had proven on a balance of probabilities that he principally depended on his sister for care. 

On July 28, 2025, the adjudicator denied the insurer’s reconsideration request, finding no factual or legal error that would have led the tribunal to a different outcome. The adjudicator found that Certas was trying to re-argue its original case. 

In a consolidated proceeding, Certas appealed and applied for a judicial review. The insurer alleged that the tribunal made a legal error or an unreasonable conclusion by confirming that Stephane principally depended on Gisele for care at the time of the accident when he had been living independently for years. 

Injured party deemed dependent

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and judicial review application. The court awarded no costs, as the parties had agreed. 

The court ruled that the adjudicator failed to show that the adjudicator made a legal error or an unreasonable decision. The court held that the adjudicator cited the correct legal principles, applied them to the evidence, and provided justified, transparent, and intelligible reasons. 

To find Stephane principally dependent on Gisele for care, the court noted that the adjudicator considered that Stephane: 

• never resided independently in his own home 
• never supported himself financially 
• kept his sister’s home as his permanent address 
• returned to his Gisele’s residence during holidays and summers, even though he attended school outside Ottawa for long periods of time 
• functioned as a high-performance athlete with his sister’s physical and emotional support and care 

The court added that the adjudicator considered that Gisele: 

• acted like a parent to Stephane because he lacked a relationship with his father and resided far away from his mother, who was mostly absent from his life in the years leading up to the collision 
• guided and supported her brother, given his learning difficulties in school and numerous injuries since moving to Canada 
• FaceTimed with Stephane multiple times weekly, sometimes daily 

The court acknowledged that the adjudicator rejected the insurer’s arguments that Stephane supported himself or that he should be physically or mentally vulnerable to depend on Gisele’s care.