Sorrentino v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company, 2026 ONSC 1578
At age 83, Ms. Sorrentino suffered catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident. After many surgeries, she asked the insurance company to pay more than $300,000 for renovations to her daughter’s house so she could live with her family and have 24-hour care. The LAT agreed with the insurance company that it merely had to pay about $22,000 to renovate her condominium. By the time of the appeal, Ms. Sorrentino was 92 and living in a nursing home because of injuries sustained falling in the condominium.
The court, noting case law stating that the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule is consumer protection legislation, said the LAT was wrong to use a two-step analysis that assessed first whether it was possible to renovate her current residence, before examining an alternative location. “The interpretation of the term “existing home” by the LAT in this case was unduly narrow and inconsistent with prevailing authority from specialized tribunals in previous cases. The adjudicator treated the condominium as the “existing home” based solely on Ms. Sorrentino’s residence at the time of the accident and ignored the practical realities facing her after the accident.” (parag 66) The court ordered immediate payment and also said the LAT was procedurally unfair by barring Ms. Sorrentino’s personal support worker from testifying.