In Sorrentino v. Certas, the Divisional Court adopted a broad and flexible approach to the meaning of “existing home” under s. 16 of the SABS, noting an important expansion in the interpretation of home modification benefits.
Facts
An 83-year old claimant, who lived independently in her condo, sustained catastrophic injuries in a 2016 motor vehicle accident. Post-accident, she chose to move in with her daughter, who would be assisting with 24/7 care, and requested that Certas fund $388,082.53 for home modifications to her daughter’s home. Certas only agreed to fund $22,825.53 to cover modifications to the claimant’s existing condo and issued a denial for the proposed modifications to the daughter’s home.
By the time of the LAT hearing, the claimant was 92 years old. The Tribunal found in favour of Certas. The claimant brought an appeal, which was granted by the Divisional Court, and included an order that Certas immediately fund the remaining, substantial costs of the modifications to the daughter’s home.
In coming to its decision, the Court rejected the Tribunal’s approach of compelling the claimant to first establish that her condo could not be modified before considering whether the proposed move to her daughter’s home was reasonable. The Court found that the claimant was entitled to decide where she would live, such that the question to consider was whether the proposed modifications to the daughter’s home were reasonable and necessary to accommodate the claimant’s needs and not whether the claimant’s decision to relocate was necessary. The Court held that the term “existing home” should not be narrowly interpreted to only encompass a claimant’s residence at the time of the loss, but includes a property a claimant inhabits full-time after the loss.
The Court also noted that the claimant’s age made it unfair for the matter to be remitted to the Tribunal for a new hearing, as she required immediate modifications to ensure she was not forced to continue living alone in increasingly hazardous and unsafe conditions.
Takeaway and Important Considerations
The claimant’s advanced age and poor health certainly guided the Court’s decision in Sorrentino, thereby potentially limiting the reach of this ruling. Nevertheless, the Court’s expanded interpretation of “existing home” reflects a broad interpretation of the SABS consistent with its consumer protection purpose. Yet, we also note the Court provided very little guidance on the practical realities on how the funds should be used, after requiring the Certas to pay over $365,000.00 forthwith to the claimant. It remains to be seen how future cases will address situations where the claimant’s living situation changes or when approved funding is not used for the purported modifications.
See Sorrentino v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company, 2026 ONSC 1578 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/kjw9n>
