Judge rejects insurer’s claim that manhole cover is ordinary part of road
In a proceeding involving a claim for statutory accident benefits, the Ontario Superior Court dismissed an insurer’s challenge against the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s finding that a Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus had collided with a manhole cover protruding on the roadway.
Toronto Transit Commission Insurance Company Ltd. v. Janes, 2026 ONSC 4709, concerned an incident arising from a manhole cover that was elevated from the road’s surface due to ongoing construction.
The motion of the bus as it drove over the raised manhole cover threw the respondent, a bus passenger, from her seat. Due to this incident, she sustained catastrophic injuries.
The respondent applied for statutory accident benefits under s. 268(1) of Ontario’s Insurance Act, 1990. The Toronto Transit Commission Insurance Company Ltd. (TTCIC) denied the requested benefits.
In its denial, the TTCIC cited s. 268(1.1) of the Insurance Act, which provided an exception for public transit vehicles that did not collide with another automobile or any other object during the incident.
Before the Licence Appeal Tribunal, the respondent challenged the TTCIC’s decision.
According to TTCIC, under s. 268(1.1), the manhole cover was not “any other object,” and the contact between the bus and the manhole cover was not a “collision.”
The tribunal rejected the TTCIC’s arguments and ruled in the respondent’s favour, which prompted the insurer to appeal and apply for judicial review.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the TTCIC’s appeal and judicial review application.
In its judicial review application, which challenged the tribunal’s factual findings, the TTCIC asserted that the raised manhole cover was an ordinary part of the road, over which vehicles were expected to drive.
The TTCIC also argued that the manhole cover was not a “temporary, independent feature within the roadway” that was“no longer seamlessly integrated with the continuous road surface,” as the tribunal had determined.
The court acknowledged that the parties did not specifically measure the degree to which the manhole cover protruded from the roadway.
However, the court found the tribunal entitled to consider the manhole cover an “object.” The court saw ample evidence that there had been a significant protrusion from the road, as the tribunal had concluded.
In support of this conclusion, the court pointed to the speed of the bus at 57 km/hr, the fact that the respondent had been thrown from her seat, and a video recording from inside the bus at that time.
In its appeal, which raised legal questions, the TTCIC alleged errors in the tribunal’s consideration of the bus speed in deciding whether a “collision” had occurred under s. 268(1.1) and its finding that a collision would require “something beyond a de minimis impact.”
The Superior Court saw no error in the tribunal’s consideration of the force of the impact, a function of the bus speed, in deciding whether there had been a “collision.”
The court found it unnecessary to address whether the vehicle’s speed and the degree of force were always relevant factors when ruling on whether a “collision” had happened under s. 268(1.1).
The TTCIC contended that the tribunal wrongly interpreted s. 268(1.1) by separately considering the words “collision” and “object.”
Disagreeing, the Superior Court held that the tribunal committed no error in first determining whether the raised manhole cover was an “object.”
The Superior Court ordered the insurer to pay the respondent $7,500 in costs, including taxes and disbursements.
Here are some other injury-related decisions in Ontario in connection with the Toronto Transit Commission.
In a case arising from a trip-and-fall accident while attempting to access a TTC bus, the Superior Court issued a June 17 decision upholding a contingency fee arrangement that imposed a proposed fee of 33 percent for tort claims and an alternate hourly rate of $900.
On Aug. 13, 2025, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of a judgment awarding an injured man over $1.5 million in damages arising from an accident in which a TTC bus rear-ended his pick-up truck.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest personal injury news on the main page!
