The Ontario Court of Appeal has released a significant decision in a long-running legal battle between an injured motorist and her insurance provider, clarifying the relationship between statutory accident benefits and the duty of good faith1. The ruling in Derenzis v. Ontario serves as a critical examination of how motor vehicle accident victims can pursue claims against insurers when they allege more than just a simple denial of benefits, but rather a systemic failure to handle their claims fairly. While the court dismissed several sensational allegations involving secret surveillance and a dramatic confrontation with an investigator, it breathed new life into the plaintiff’s core claim that her insurer may have breached its fundamental contractual obligations.
Read the lower court’s decision here.
The case began with a motor vehicle accident on November 24, 2015. Lucia Derenzis suffered injuries in the crash and subsequently applied for statutory accident benefits through her provider, Gore Mutual Insurance Company. Under Ontario law, every automobile insurance policy includes a standard set of benefits known as the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS). These benefits are designed to provide quick access to funding for medical treatment, rehabilitation, and income replacement, regardless of who was at fault for the accident. However, the process for obtaining these benefits often involves rigorous medical assessments and investigations to determine the extent of a claimant’s disability.
As Ms. Derenzis moved through the claims process, the relationship between her and Gore Mutual soured significantly. She eventually filed a massive lawsuit naming not only the insurance company but also several of its employees, independent medical assessment firms, and private investigation agencies. Her allegations were wide-ranging. She claimed that Gore and its staff failed to adjudicate her claims in good faith by withholding medical records from assessors, encouraging doctors to alter their reports, and scheduling an excessive number of unnecessary medical examinations. She also alleged that the company subjected her to aggressive and intimidating surveillance.
One of the more striking elements of the lawsuit involved an incident during a medical assessment. Ms. Derenzis alleged that on September 7, 2016, an occupational therapist hired to conduct an independent exam forced her to lift heavy weights. She claimed this physical strain caused a hernia that required multiple surgeries. Based on this, she sued for battery. Furthermore, her son-in-law, Joshua Da Silva, joined the lawsuit with a dramatic claim of his own. He alleged that in October 2017, while he and Ms. Derenzis were being followed by a private investigator, he approached the investigator’s vehicle to ask for identification. He claimed the investigator fled the scene, striking him with the car and causing injuries.
The legal complexity of the case was further heightened by Ms. Derenzis’ decision to challenge the very laws governing insurance in Ontario. She argued that the statutory scheme was unconstitutional, claiming it violated her rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Specifically, she challenged the requirement that disputes over benefits must be heard by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) rather than the Superior Court. She argued that the LAT lacked the necessary procedural protections and independence to handle complex legal disputes. She also alleged that the way care payments are structured under the SABS constituted a breach of the Human Rights Code because it treated family caregivers differently than professional ones.
In the initial stages of the lawsuit, Gore Mutual and several other defendants moved to strike the claims, arguing they had no legal prospect of success. A Superior Court judge largely agreed, dismissing the majority of the claims without allowing Ms. Derenzis a chance to fix the wording of her legal documents. The motion judge struck the claims for battery, breach of privacy, and abuse of process. She also dismissed the son-in-law’s claims against the insurer, finding that even if an investigator had struck him with a car, the insurer could not be held responsible for the intentional or negligent acts of an independent contractor. Finally, the judge struck the constitutional and human rights challenges, ruling that these issues had already been addressed or should have been raised during previous proceedings at the LAT.
However, the Court of Appeal found that the lower court had been too quick to dismiss one of the most important aspects of the case: the claim for breach of good faith. Justice D.A. Wilson, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, noted that the motion judge had made several legal errors regarding how insurance contracts work in Ontario. The lower court had previously ruled that the duty of good faith was “untethered” because Ms. Derenzis had not explicitly sued for “breach of contract.” The Court of Appeal disagreed, stating that while the legal documents were perhaps not perfectly drafted, they clearly alleged that Gore Mutual had failed to meet its obligations under the insurance policy.
Justice Wilson clarified a fundamental point of Ontario insurance law: the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule is not a separate set of government rules, but is actually deemed to be part of every automobile insurance contract. Therefore, if an insurer fails to follow the SABS or handles a claim in an unfair or dishonest manner, it is a breach of the insurance contract itself. The court emphasized that an insurer has an independent legal obligation to deal with all claims in good faith. This means they must act with “reasonable promptness” and “fairness” when evaluating a victim’s needs.
The Court of Appeal’s decision to restore the good faith claim is particularly significant because of the ongoing constitutional challenge to the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Normally, claims involving accident benefits must stay within the tribunal system. However, since the lower court had allowed a challenge to the validity of Section 280 of the Insurance Act—the law that gives the tribunal exclusive power—to proceed to trial, the Court of Appeal ruled that it was not “plain and obvious” that the good faith claims were doomed to fail in court. By allowing Ms. Derenzis to amend her claim, the court ensures that the conduct of the insurer will be properly scrutinized if the case moves forward.
Despite this victory for the plaintiff on the issue of good faith, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the more sensational tort claims. Regarding the alleged battery during the medical exam, the court found that the occupational therapist was a subcontractor, not an employee of Gore Mutual, meaning the insurance company could not be held vicariously liable for the therapist’s actions. The court also noted that the claim against the medical assessment company was filed far too late, missing the mandatory two-year limitation period. The court rejected the argument that Ms. Derenzis’ financial dependence on her insurer should have paused the clock on that deadline.
The court also stood firm on the issues of privacy and surveillance. It ruled that since Ms. Derenzis had signed a consent form for her medical records to be reviewed, she could not claim a “breach of privacy” simply because those records were shared with assessors. Regarding the surveillance, the court noted that the lawsuit failed to provide any specific facts showing that the private investigators did anything “unlawful” or “intrusive” beyond what is typically permitted in insurance investigations. Similarly, the court found no basis to hold the insurer liable for the investigator’s alleged collision with Mr. Da Silva, as there was no evidence the insurer directed or authorized such a dangerous act.
The final result of the appeal is a mixed bag for both sides. The Court of Appeal allowed the lawsuit to continue against Gore Mutual specifically regarding the alleged breach of the duty of good faith. Ms. Derenzis has been granted leave to amend her statement of claim to provide more details on how the company allegedly mishandled her file. All other claims against the individual employees and the various third-party companies were permanently dismissed. Because both sides were partially successful, the court ordered that no costs be paid by either party for the appeal process. The case will now return to the lower court, where the focus will shift to the internal handling of the insurance file and the broader constitutional questions regarding how Ontario treats accident victims.
Read about more personal injury cases here.
