ASSIGNMENT #2 – SUBMISSIONS

Object of the Assignment

In this assignment, you will prepare a written submission to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) relating to the issue of whether Suzie Stumble’s injuries arose from an “accident” as defined in the relevant Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (“SABS”).

Due Date and Value of the Assignment

This assignment must be submitted through Brightspace no later than the beginning of class in Week 13.

This assignment is worth 15% of your final grade.

Instructions

Students must follow the instructions set out below.  Failure to follow the instructions will result in the loss of marks.

The Facts

Your client, Here4You Insurance (“Here4You”), has denied SABS benefits claimed by Suzie Stumble. Suzie owns her own car, which is insured through Here4You. Both Suzie Stumble and Here4You have agreed to the following statement of facts:

• Suzie ordered a bouquet of flowers from a local florist, which agreed to deliver the bouquet once it was prepared.
• On August 12, 2021, the florist called Suzie to tell her that their delivery person, Bill Perez, would be delivering the bouquet between 11:00 a.m. and 3 p.m. that day. Because of COVID-19 concerns, the florist said that Bill would call Suzie from the delivery van and ask Suzie to come out and retrieve the bouquet from the trunk of the van.
• Around 2:30 p.m., Bill called Suzie and said he was in her driveway. Bill had parked at the end of the driveway closest to the street because Suzie’s son had left some toys in the driveway closer to the house.
• Suzie came out of her house, walked down the driveway and, as she approached the delivery van, Bill rolled down his window and told her to open the trunk to retrieve the bouquet. Bill remained in the driver’s seat and turned the engine off.
• Suzie opened the trunk, leaned into the van and picked up the bouquet. It was a large, expensive arrangement that was sitting in a heavy glass vase weighing around 10 pounds.
• While holding the vase in both hands, Suzie turned away from the van and closed the trunk door with her hip. She then started to walk back up the driveway toward her house.
• Due to the weight of the vase, Suzie tried to change her grip while walking to better support the vase. When she did, she started to drop the vase. As she tried to regain control of the vase in her hands, she staggered toward the top of the driveway where, unfortunately, her son had left a toy truck.
• Suzie tripped over the toy truck, dropping the vase which smashed on the ground. She landed on the driveway on her right knee and immediately felt pain in her knee where it struck the ground.
• As Suzie got up off the ground, Bill got out of the van and asked if she was OK, and Suzie said she was fine. Bill left and promised to return later with another vase for no extra charge. No emergency services were called.
• Suzie iced her knee for a few days and took some over-the-counter pain relievers, but when the pain did not subside, she went to her family doctor who diagnosed a knee sprain and contusion. The doctor prescribed physiotherapy.
• Suzie applied to Here4You for coverage of the physio costs under the Minor Injury Guidelines but was denied on September 3^rd. Here4You took the position that Suzie’s injuries were due to the toy truck and Suzie’s inattention when stepping away from the van and were not directly caused by an accident as defined in the SABS.

Suzie is of the opinion that her injuries arise out of the use of an automobile as she was taking an item from Bill’s van (a common use of automobiles) at the time she was injured. She believes that her injuries were directly caused by Bill parking at the end of the driveway, requiring her to walk farther back to the house. She relies on KP v Aviva General Insurance, 2020 CanLII 51278 (Ont LAT), to support her position.

Suzie filed the Application by an Insured Person with the LAT on September 18^th claiming coverage under the MIG for the physio costs and challenging Here4You’s position that Suzie’s injuries were not caused by an accident (LAT file number: 21-956258/AABS). Here4You filed its Response by an Insurance Company on September 29^th, again claiming that Suzie’s injuries were not an accident as defined in the SABS.

At the case conference, it became clear that the issue of what constitutes an “accident” would be central to the application. The presiding member felt that it would assist the member at the hearing if written submissions on this issue were filed in advance of the hearing. You must prepare the written submission on behalf of Here4You.

Scope of Submission

Substance

You are to use 3 cases in your submission. The cases used should be:

• CKD v Wawanesa Mutual Insurance, 2020 CanLII 80305 (Ont LAT) for the legal tests. From this case, identify and outline the relevant legal tests and sub-tests.
• KP v Aviva General Insurance, 2020 CanLII 51278 (Ont LAT). You must distinguish this case that Suzie is relying on.
• One LAT (or FSCO) case that finds in favour of the insurer’s position that there was no “accident” and has sufficient factual similarity to the Suzie/Here4You scenario that an analogy can be made.

Your submission should include the following elements:

• Brief summary of the purpose of the submission and identification of the finding you are asking the LAT to make
• Summary of the relevant facts
• Identification of the legal tests and sub-tests in sufficient detail
• Analysis/application of the facts to the legal tests through a persuasive argument
• Effective argument distinguishing the KP v Aviva General Insurance case
• Effective incorporation of the analogous LAT (or FSCO) case into your analysis/argument
• Conclusion summarizing your argument and the finding you are asking the LAT to make

Note that the factually closer that the analogous LAT (or FSCO) case is to your client’s circumstances, the more value the case will hold in your argument (and the marking grid!).

Please carefully review the marking grid posted on Brightspace to confirm that you have included all of the substantive elements required in your submission.

Format

The presiding member has directed that the submissions must be word-processed with numbered paragraphs.  The submissions must be a maximum of 6 double-spaced pages on regular 8.5 x 11-inch size paper with 1” margins (this does not include general heading material or an endnotes/references page).  Font must be 12-point font in either Times New Roman or Arial. THE LAT WILL NOT READ BEYOND 6 PAGES! 

The presiding member has also directed that a copy of the LAT (or FSCO) case you rely on be included with your submission and that you highlight on the copy the paragraphs from the case that you refer to in your submission.

There is no LAT form for written submissions. You should create your own format for the submission but must ensure that it includes all relevant identifying information for the LAT that is found on standard LAT forms. The submission must be of professional quality. If you are working with a partner, please ensure that both of your names are on the submission.

Assignment Procedure

• The written submission element of the assignment and the case you refer to must be uploaded to Brightspace as PDF documents.

• Your assignment must be uploaded through the Assignment #2 link on Brightspace.  The date and time at which Brightspace registers submission of the assignment will be deemed to be the date and time at which it was submitted.  If your assignment is late (submitted after the option 2 deadline), absent extenuating circumstances, you will receive a mark of “0”.

• Your assignment may be submitted through plagiarism software to ensure that the content is original and that proper pinpoint references using the McGill citation format were provided (if need be).

• This assignment is to be completed in a team of two students or on an individual basis. If the assignment is completed in a team of students, only one assignment per team should be submitted.  Both members of the team will receive the same mark.   If you work in a team, you should ensure that both of you are involved in all aspects of the work. (When you place your name on an assignment, you assume ownership of the content and may be held responsible if there are academic integrity issues.)

• Up to 5 marks will be deducted for spelling and grammar errors and/or the failure to submit an assignment of a professional quality (word-processed and organized). 

• School of Business Procedures and College Policies relating to plagiarism and academic dishonesty apply to this assignment.  Note that it is a violation of the academic dishonesty policies to help another student to commit an act of academic dishonesty by letting him/her view your answers, by lending your work, by sharing electronic files, by working together on a project when you are not that person’s official partner or by handing-in a copied assignment, whether the assignment has been copied in full or in part.  For full details, please review the relevant School of Business Procedures and College Policies.

Get expert help for TRIBUNAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!