Ontario's Divisional Court has ruled that a student-athlete left tetraplegic by a US car crash qualifies as a dependent under his sister's auto policy.
In a decision released February 27, 2026, the court dismissed an appeal and judicial review by Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company, upholding a Licence Appeal Tribunal finding that Stephane Okenge was an insured person under his older sister Gisele's automobile policy with Certas (Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company v. Okenge, 2026 ONSC 1189).
The story begins in Uganda, where Stephane lived with his mother before moving to Ottawa at age 14 to live with Gisele and attend Canada Topflight Academy for Basketball on a scholarship. From there, he attended high school in Oklahoma and was later recruited to York University in Nebraska — all on basketball scholarships. During those years, he lived with billet families or in student housing but kept Gisele's Ottawa address as his permanent address. He returned to her home for holidays, summers, a medical procedure, and part of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On October 23, 2022, while living in a university student residence in Nebraska, Stephane was involved in a motor vehicle accident that left him tetraplegic. He was 19. He had no car and no auto insurance of his own. A claim for statutory accident benefits was filed under Gisele's policy with Certas.
Certas denied the claim, arguing Stephane was not an insured person under the policy. The insurer's position was that he had been living independently for years and could not reasonably be considered dependent on his sister.
The dispute hinged on a provision in Ontario's Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule that extends the definition of "insured person" to include dependants of the named policyholder or their spouse - specifically, anyone "principally dependent for financial support or care" on them.
Tribunal Adjudicator Melanie Malach found that Stephane met that test. Given the lack of relationship with his father and the distance from his mother, Gisele had become like a parent. She FaceTimed him multiple times a week, sometimes daily, offering guidance and support. Stephane had never lived on his own or supported himself financially. And no one else, the Adjudicator found, provided him a similar level of care.
Certas pushed back, requesting reconsideration and arguing that physical or mental vulnerability should generally be required for a dependency finding. The Tribunal dismissed the request, calling it an attempt to re-argue the original case.
The Divisional Court, with Justices Matheson, Muszynski, and Brownstone presiding, agreed. The court found the Adjudicator identified the correct legal principles and applied them to the evidence in a manner that was justified, transparent, and intelligible. It upheld the Tribunal's position that vulnerability is not a prerequisite for dependency and that each case must be assessed on its own facts.
The appeal and judicial review were dismissed. No costs were awarded, as agreed by the parties.
For claims professionals and underwriters, the takeaway is clear: dependency under Ontario's accident benefits regime does not require a claimant to be physically or mentally vulnerable. Living arrangements involving students, athletes, or individuals in transitional housing may still support a valid dependency claim - regardless of geographic distance.
