By Chelsea Laskowski

Court of Appeal ruling in as northern couple battles SGI

May 4, 2015 | 6:53 AM

A northern Saskatchewan couple successfully took on SGI in the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal after they were denied income replacement related to a truck hitting them in 2009.

That year, SGI decided the extensive injuries Stanley and Rachel Ballantyne received in that incident didn’t keep them from resuming studies or employment related to those studies, and denied the income replacement.

The two were hurt when a truck struck them on Sept. 28, 2009: Rachel required surgery for a dislocated hip, fractured collar bone, and dislocated shoulder; Stanley’s pelvis was fractured and his legs were injured.

SGI did provide them with daily living assistance for several months after the accident, paid them for loss of studies, and compensated them for permanent bodily impairment.

SGI’s rejection of the Ballantynes’ application for income replacement led them to appeal the decision with the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission (AIAC).

Lighting it up

P.A.'s Zablocki leads Regina to victory on Day 4 at Esso Cup

18h ago

WORLD SOFTBALL

Group stages officially set for Men's Softball World Cup in P.A.

Apr 24, 2024

Safety first

Safety concerns and tips surrounding discarded needles in P.A.

Apr 23, 2024

The commission upheld that decision, which took the couple to Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal where their case was heard in November of 2014.

Why they were originally rejected

The Court of Appeal ruling on the Ballantynes’ claim was released in April, and covers the back story to their situation.

Stanley was a self-employed commercial fisher before the accident, but had registered to upgrade his education through a community college by the fall of 2009. Rachel was attending a literacy program through the college but had helped her husband in the fishing operation in the past.

With declining fish stocks, the couple was looking to get out of the business and use their studies to obtain jobs on the reserve, according to testimony from their hearings.

The AIAC rejected the Ballantynes’ application with three reasons. They revolved around the couple failing to prove they couldn’t fish because of the accident and failing to establish they were unable to hold employment that their “current studies” would have enabled them to hold.

The Court of Appeal ruling accepts the Ballantynes’ argument that the AIAC’s finding that they didn’t qualify was flawed.

The strongly worded Court of Appeal ruling centred on the AIAC’s interpretation of The Automobile Accident Insurance Act, which “results in absurdity which cannot be upheld” and defeats the purpose of the whole act.

The AIAC decision stated the upgrading Stanley was registered for, and the linguistic course Rachel was attending “did not train them for any specific job, nor did it relate to their occupation as commercial fishers.”

Essentially, it stated any income the couple could have gained wouldn’t have related to their studies because they were so broad. As such, their income replacement was denied.

The Court of Appeal stated that’s too restrictive, instead iterating “The purpose of income replacement benefits is to compensate insured persons for actual and future loss of income which results from their injuries.”

So what happens now?

The ruling through Saskatchewan’s Court of Appeal did not answer whether or not the couple qualifies for income replacement, stating that not enough evidence was put before it to make that call.

The AIAC must rehear their claim. 

claskowski@jpbg.ca

On Twitter: @chelsealaskowsk