Tribunal says snow falling from a gas station canopy did not break the chain of causation
The Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has ruled on an incident involving snow and ice falling from a gas station canopy. At the same time, a motorist refuelled his vehicle, which constituted an accident under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).
On Kroon v Belair Insurance Company Inc., 2026 CanLII 106201 (ON LAT), the tribunal found that the applicant sustained impairments as a result of the incident and that the incident met the legal definition of an “accident.”
The dispute arose from a March 30, 2025 incident when snow or ice fell from an overhead canopy while the applicant pumped gas. He stepped away from his vehicle after hearing a noise and subsequently reported neck and shoulder injuries and psychological impairments.
Belair Insurance Company Inc. denied accident benefits, arguing that the incident did not meet the SABS definition of an accident. The insurer maintained that the falling snow did not strike the applicant and attributed his shoulder complaints to a fall over a fence eight days earlier.
The tribunal found, on a balance of probabilities, sufficient evidence that the applicant sustained impairments during the gas station incident. The tribunal also found sufficient evidence suggesting that the incident might have aggravated the applicant's pre-existing shoulder injury.
Applying the two-part test established in Economical Mutual Insurance Company v. Caughy, 2016 ONCA 226, the tribunal examined whether the incident arose from automobile use and whether that use directly caused the impairments.
The parties did not dispute that refuelling satisfied the purpose test. The tribunal found that fuelling a vehicle at a gas station was an ordinary, well-known activity associated with automobile use.
On causation, the tribunal rejected the insurer's argument that falling snow represented an intervening event that severed the causal connection. It found that snow falling from a gas station canopy was a normal incident of the risks associated with automobile use during Ontario winters and did not break the chain of causation.
The tribunal also determined that refuelling remained the dominant feature of the incident because the applicant stepped away from his vehicle only seconds before the snow fell.
Accordingly, the tribunal found that the incident qualified as an accident under s. 3(1) of the SABS.
The application will proceed to a hearing on the substantive issues, where the applicant must establish entitlement to the disputed benefits.
