Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company v. Okenge, 2026 ONSC 1189
A person’s dependency on a family member does not necessarily end because they move away for school, live abroad or receive financial support from other sources, such as scholarship funding or other financial assistance. In Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company v. Okenge, the Divisional Court confirmed that dependency for care under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) requires a contextual assessment of the relationship, rather than a narrow focus on residence or finances.
The Claim
Stephane Okenge moved from Uganda to Ottawa when he was 14 years old to attend Canada Topflight Academy on a basketball scholarship. He lived with his older sister, Gisele, for approximately three months before moving into a billet home as required by the academy. Despite that move, he continued to spend substantial time at Gisele’s apartment.
Stephane later attended high school in Oklahoma and university at York University in Nebraska, also on basketball scholarships. During the school year, he lived with billet families or in student accommodation. When he was not attending school, however, he regularly returned to Gisele’s home in Ottawa. He also stayed with her during a medical procedure and for a period during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gisele’s address remained his permanent address during his school years.
On October 23, 2022, Stephane was injured in a motor vehicle collision while living in Nebraska, rendering him a tetraplegic (quadriplegic). He was 19 years old at the time, did not own a vehicle and did not have his own automobile insurance policy. He claimed SABS under Gisele’s Certas policy.
Certas denied the claim. The insurer argued that Stephane was not an insured person because he had been living independently in the United States and supporting himself through basketball scholarships.
The LAT’s Decision
Adjudicator Melanie Malach found that Stephane qualified as a ‘dependant’ under the policy because he was principally dependent on Gisele for care and was therefore an insured person under Gisele’s automobile policy for purposes of the SABS.
The adjudicator looked beyond the arrangement during the academic year. Relevant considerations included Stephane’s circumstances as a young person who had immigrated to Canada, his educational and social needs, the emotional and practical support Gisele provided and his mother’s limited ability to assist from Uganda.
Although Stephane spent much of the year away from Ottawa, the adjudicator found that Gisele’s home continued to be his permanent home. More importantly, the relationship between them showed that he continued to rely on her for guidance, support and care.
Certas sought reconsideration. The reconsideration request was dismissed because, in the adjudicator’s view, the insurer was seeking to revisit the merits of the original decision rather than identifying a reviewable error.
Divisional Court’s Analysis
The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and application for judicial review. Given an appeal from the LAT lies only on questions of law, and the test on such an appeal is correctness, the court found that Certas’ argument – that the adjudicator had applied the correct legal framework but incorrectly applied it to the facts – raised a question of mixed fact and law, not an appealable error of law, and the appeal was dismissed. This left Certas’ pursuit of judicial review to try to establish that the adjudicator’s decision was unreasonable. The Divisional Court found that the decision was reasonable on the evidence and dismissed the application for judicial review as well.
Certas argued that the existing test for dependency had been misapplied. The court disagreed, concluding that the adjudicator had properly considered the relevant circumstances surrounding Stephane’s relationship with Gisele.
The insurer also argued that dependency for “care” should be confined largely to situations where the individual had a physical or mental vulnerability. The court rejected that interpretation.
It can be taken from this decision that ‘care’ under the SABS is not restricted to medical assistance or day to day physical needs. Depending on the circumstances, it can include the emotional, social, educational and practical support a young person requires while navigating important life transitions.
Stephane’s scholarships and physical distance from Ottawa did not determine the issue. The question was whether, looking at the relationship as a whole, he remained principally dependent on Gisele for care. The court held that the evidence supported the adjudicator’s decision.
Why This Case Matters
Okenge is a reminder that apparent independence is not the same as actual independence. A young person may live away from home, attend school and receive financial assistance without losing an important dependency relationship with a family member.
The decision may be especially relevant where a young person has immigrated to Canada, lacks meaningful parental support and relies on a sibling or other relative for stability, guidance and practical assistance. It also illustrates that co-residence and financial dependence are important considerations, but they are not the only ones.
Under the SABS, we see that dependency for care is assessed in context. The nature and substance of the family relationship remain central to this assessment.