Children of man killed in car crash fighting SGI over death benefits

Three children of a man who died in a 2014 car crash are in a court battle with Saskatchewan Government Insurance over death benefits.

According to a written decision from the Court of Queen's Bench Saskatchewan, Garry Johnson died on Aug. 9, 2014.

He had no surviving spouse and the three children — the plaintiffs — were all under the age of 21 at the time of the crash.

Death benefit split between 3 children

In 2015, SGI decided that in the absence of a surviving spouse, the minimum death benefit of $66, 696 should be split three ways between the children.

The children turned to the courts, arguing that they should each receive the full share of what a surviving spouse would have received.

The issue at hand was the interpretation of The Automobile Accident Insurance Act, which declares that the spousal benefit should go to "the dependant."

The lawyer for the plaintiffs, Jonathan Abrametz, argued that the law should be interpreted literally — that the singular word "dependant" applies to each of the children.

But the judge disagreed and, on Oct. 2, ruled in favour of SGI.

Judge's decision

Justice J. Scherman wrote that given that "in common parlance" there can only be one spouse, therefore there can only be one spousal death benefit.

"When the legislature directed in s. 145(2) that if there is no spouse 'the dependant' is entitled to the spousal death benefit, this was no doubt intended to provide her children the same benefits flowing from her spousal benefits they would have received had she survived," said the judge.

"It would be inequitable to remove that benefit from the greater family unit simply because the spouse did not survive the insured. On the other hand, it would be inequitable to provide something in the nature of a windfall to those children of an insured who did not have a spouse."

Justice Scherman also wrote that the plaintiff's request would have "absurd consequences", citing a hypothetical: the children of one person killed in a crash (who had a surviving spouse) would effectively receive a collective $66,000 through their parent, while the five children of a second person killed (who had no surviving spouse) would receive $66,000 each.

SGI said in a statement that they are "satisfied" with the court's decision but did not comment further.

Children to appeal decision

Abrametz said he has already filed an appeal on behalf of his clients.

"Not only have they had to lose a father but they've also had to come to the realization that they dispute what SGI has provided them in terms of death benefit," he said.

"And then they've also had to go to the court and ask the court for that money.

"The promise of no fault was that you wouldn't have to do that."

He described the court's interpretation as "strained."

All about interpretation

Abrametz cited the previous case of Ballantyne vs. SGI, in which he says an appeal court ruled that if there is ambiguity in the legislation the court should rule in favour of the claimant.

"It boils down to statutory interpretation, trying to figure out what a legislature meant in the words of an act," said Abrametz.

Justice Scherman dismissed the relevance of Ballantyne in this particular case.

"The brief summary of applicable principles of interpretation provided in the quoted extracts from Ballantyne and Holt do not, for the purposes of this decision, explore the necessary scope of purposive and contextual analysis."

Abrametz expects the case to be considered by an appeals court early next year.