17-000532 v Intact Insurance Company, 2017 CanLII 87155
Dec 15, 2017
Adjudicator: Deborah Neilson
1. Was the collision an “accident” as defined by section 3(1) of the Schedule?
2. Is the respondent entitled to terminate the payment of benefits because the applicant willfully misrepresented material facts with respect to the “accident” and his application for benefits under s. 53 of the Schedule?
3. The respondent felt the applicant was not credible: the applicants collision has commonalities with 5 other accidents, 4 which involved rental cars, some of the occupants were Facebook friends or attended the same college
- The applicant is required to present his evidence first as he bears the onus of proving that he was involved in an accident as defined under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.
- The applicant failed to meet his burden of proof and presented no other expert opinion or witness
- The accident reconstruction report of Mr. Michael Jenkins was accepted. The Jenkins report concluded that the cars involved either did not collide given the different scratches on the bumper or the two cars collided no less than five times.
- The respondent is entitled to terminate benefits under s. 53 because the applicant wilfully made a material misrepresentation in his application for benefits
- The applicant’s evidence and statements were deemed inconsistent by the Adjudicator, the most significant of which included the events leading up to the accident and why the applicant was at the location at that time.