Volume. 9 Issue. 12 – April 9, 2025
Bus Travelling Over Elevated Manhole Cover Satisfies “Collision”
This week the Tribunal considers whether an elevated manhole cover satisfies the definition of “any other object” in the Insurance Act. Then, whether a bus going over same satisfies the definition of “collision”. The decision may well surprise you.
Virtual Training – New Sessions Added!
Secure your seat for inHEALTH’s 2025 upcoming Virtual Training session!
- SABS Expedited: May 5-9, 2025
*Eligible Participants receive 9 Substantive – CPD hours upon course completion
Course details & register here +
(Not) Just Another Bump in the Road – In August 2023, the Applicant Janes was an occupant of a TTC bus that was traveling on a roadway where roadwork was in progress. As part of the roadwork, sections of the road had been milled below the surface, leaving manhole covers elevated relative to the road surface. The incident in question occurred when a wheel of the TTC bus drove over a raised manhole cover. At issue, in 23-011571 v TTC, was whether 268(1.1) of the Insurance Act applied in the circumstances to disentitle Janes from receiving statutory accident benefits.
The relevant section of the Act specifies that “No statutory accident benefits are payable in respect of an occupant of a public transit vehicle, in respect of an incident that occurs on or after the date this subsection comes into force, if the public transit automobile vehicle did not collide with another or any other object in the incident.” The parties disagreed as to whether the raised manhole cover was “any other object” and whether the incident was a “collision” under the Act.
“Any Other Object”?
Janes contended that “the raised manhole cover, while ordinarily part of the roadway, was transformed into a distinct “object” when it was raised above the road surface due the milling of the surrounding road surface during roadwork…that the raised manhole cover should be treated as separate and distinct from the continuous roadway surface once it became temporarily elevated rather than as an integral part of the road.” The TTC countered that “the raised manhole cover, even when elevated, is an integral part of the roadway infrastructure and does not fall within the meaning of “any other object” under s. 268(1.1).”
Applicant’s Position
The Tribunal ultimately accepted Janes’ argument “that the raised manhole cover, a distinct iron structure, became elevated during roadwork, creating a temporary, independent feature within the roadway. This physical separation, and difference in elevation, transformed the raised manhole cover into an item no longer seamlessly integrated with the continuous road surface. Moreover, I accept the applicant’s submissions and take notice that a manhole cover can be installed or removed independently, serving an additional purpose of providing underground access. Unlike an incidental bump in the asphalt or a pothole, the raised manhole cover created an independent feature and can reasonably be interpreted as “any other object”.”
Respondent’s Position
Conversely, the Tribunal was “not persuaded by the respondent’s argument that even when elevated, the raised manhole cover remains an integral part of the roadway infrastructure and cannot fall within the meaning of “any other object” under section 268(1.1). Even if I accept the respondent’s position that the raised manhole cover serves a function as part of the roadway, I do not find that the raised manhole cover necessarily loses its status as “any other object” merely because it is partially embedded in the road.” The Tribunal further disagreed with the argument that an object cannot qualify as “any other object” because it is part of the roadway, noting that the “phrase “any other object” is broad and unqualified, and there is no requirement in the statute that an object must not also serve as part of or a feature of the roadway to meet this definition. Regardless of whether the raised manhole cover is integrated into the road infrastructure, its distinct, elevated, and tangible nature satisfies the plain and ordinary meaning of “any other object.”
“Any Other Object” Satisfied
The Tribunal was further “unpersuaded by the respondent’s argument that recognizing a raised manhole cover as “any other object” would lead to absurd outcomes. The elevated manhole cover is a distinct and tangible feature, temporarily transformed into a separate object due to its elevation during roadwork… Considering the raised manhole cover’s distinct and independent nature within the roadway, I conclude that it satisfies the definition of “any other object” under section 268(1.1). Accordingly, I find that the raised manhole cover constitutes “any other object” within the meaning of the statute.”
“Collision”?
Janes contended that “the definition of “collision” is context-dependent and that, in this case, the excessive speed of 57 km/h, which exceeded both the regular speed limit for the area and the reduced caution expected in a construction zone, along with the force of the impact, satisfies the meaning of “collision” under the Insurance Act.” The Tribunal accepted this rendering, finding “that the excessive speed of 57 km/h, as evidenced in the GPS data on the surveillance footage, exceeded what was reasonable for safely navigating the elevated manhole cover. I find that this excessive speed transformed what would have been an intended interaction with the road feature into a forceful, disruptive contact, consistent with the ordinary meaning of a collision.”
Caution Required
The Tribunal found that the “raised manhole cover is a roadway feature intended to be traversed with caution. In this case, the excessive speed at which the bus drove over the raised manhole cover rendered the contact inappropriate and transformed it into a collision. This conclusion is supported by the signage and pylons visible in the surveillance footage, which indicate that the construction zone required careful navigation at reduced speeds. The Tribunal did not accept the TTC’s suggestion that the “driver’s failure to stop immediately after the impact suggests that there was no collision, and that the lack of damage or resistance undermines the applicant’s position. I disagree. The surveillance footage shows that the bus came to a stop approximately 20 seconds after the impact, following a report from a passenger. While the delayed response may indicate that the driver did not initially perceive the incident as a safety concern, it does not preclude a finding that a collision with another object occurred.”
Not Akin to a Pothole
The Tribunal concluded that “the elevated speed of 57 km/h, combined with the raised cover, produced a meaningful impact consistent with the type of forceful contact typically considered a collision. The signage highlights that the roadway was passable with appropriate caution, which was not exercised in this case… The raised manhole cover is not analogous to typical road features like potholes or speed bumps. It is a distinct, removable feature that became elevated temporarily due to roadwork, introducing a condition that required reduced speed and additional caution. The forceful, high-speed impact with this elevated feature falls squarely within the plain and ordinary meaning of “collision” with “any other object,” without improperly expanding the scope of coverage.
No Access to Tort
Reference was made to the fact that the Act directs public transit passengers away from the statutory accident benefits system to the enhanced tort system, when no collision with another vehicle or object occurs. The TTC suggested “that accepting the applicant’s interpretation would expand the statute’s scope contrary to legislative intent, making virtually any roadway contact that causes a bump qualify as a “collision.” However, the Tribunal found that “there must be a degree of consequence or disruption to the vehicle’s motion, something beyond a de minimis impact, to meet the statutory requirement of the word “collide”. This threshold ensures that only non-negligible contacts with distinct objects are captured by section 268(1.1), rather than every minor or inconsequential encounter with the roadway.”
Accordingly, based on the facts of this case and the statutory scheme, I find that the raised manhole cover falls under the definition of “any other object” under section 268(1.1) of the Insurance Act and that the incident constitutes a “collision.” The statutory framework directs claimants to the tort system only when there is no collision with another vehicle or object, but it does not narrow the definitions of “collision” or “any other object” to preclude findings such as this one.”
Conclusion
Concluding, the Tribunal confirmed that Section 268(1.1) of the Insurance Act does not apply to disentitle Janes from statutory accident benefits.
Access inHEALTH’s research resources through Live Chat and receive your OAR. Get It now!