Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The appellant sought no-fault death benefits after her son died following a police encounter involving a motor vehicle.

• Central issue was whether the injuries causing death were “caused by a motor vehicle” under Saskatchewan’s insurance statute.

• The Court of Appeal reformulated the Amos causation test to reflect the narrower statutory language in Saskatchewan.

• The use of the vehicle was found to be merely incidental and not a causal factor in the injuries or death.

• The court held there was no direct or consequential causal relationship between the injuries and vehicle use.

• Appeal was dismissed as the statutory requirements for no-fault benefits were not satisfied.

The appellant sought no-fault death benefits after her son died following a police encounter involving a motor vehicle

Verna Umpherville, as administrator of her son Boden Sasakamoose’s estate, applied to Saskatchewan Government Insurance (SGI) for no-fault death benefits under The Automobile Accident Insurance Act (AAIA). Mr. Sasakamoose died after an altercation with police officers who attempted to remove him from a stationary vehicle. He was struck with batons and tasered, leading to cardiac arrest, coma, and ultimately death. The agreed facts confirmed that the vehicle had lurched forward at low speed during the incident and made minor contact with a police car, but that the collision did not cause the injuries leading to death.

SGI denied benefits on the basis that the injuries were not caused by a motor vehicle, as required under the statutory definition of “accident” and “bodily injury caused by a motor vehicle.” That decision was upheld by the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission, and Ms. Umpherville appealed to the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal.

Court considered whether the vehicle use caused the fatal injuries under a modified test

The main legal question was whether Mr. Sasakamoose’s injuries and death were causally linked to the use or operation of the vehicle. The court acknowledged the general application of the Amos test, which originates from the Supreme Court of Canada and requires a two-part analysis: whether the vehicle was being used in an ordinary way, and whether there was a causal connection between the use of the vehicle and the injury. However, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal found that the AAIA used narrower language than the British Columbia statute considered in Amos, requiring that bodily injury be “caused by” a motor vehicle, rather than simply “arising out of” its use.

As a result, the court reformulated the test for Saskatchewan as follows:

1. Did the accident result from an ordinary and well-known use of a motor vehicle?

2. Is there a direct or consequential causal relationship—more than incidental or fortuitous—between the injury and the use of the motor vehicle?

Causal relationship between injuries and vehicle use was not established

Applying this modified test, the court agreed that the first part was satisfied: riding as a passenger in a vehicle is an ordinary use. However, the second part failed. The use or operation of the motor vehicle was not a contributing cause of the injuries. The court held that the true cause of the injuries was the police officers’ actions—striking and tasering Mr. Sasakamoose—not the operation of the vehicle. The brief movement of the vehicle was not a factor in causing the fatal injuries, and its involvement was deemed merely incidental.

The Court emphasized that the vehicle’s role as the location of the incident did not meet the statutory requirement that injuries be “caused by” the vehicle’s use. Unlike in Amos, where the injury stemmed from attempted theft of the vehicle, here the presence of the vehicle did not generate or influence the actions leading to injury.

Appeal dismissed due to lack of statutory causation

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Commission’s decision and SGI’s denial of benefits. It concluded there was no legal error in the interpretation of the statute or in the assessment of the causal relationship. The court reiterated that Saskatchewan’s legislative scheme requires a clear causal link between vehicle use and injury to trigger no-fault coverage. Since that threshold was not met, Mr. Sasakamoose’s estate was not entitled to benefits. No costs were awarded.