Becamon v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company

Becamon v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company

2009 ONCA 113
Ontario Court of Appeal — MacPherson, Laskin & Armstrong JJ.A. | February 6, 2009

Background

On December 19, 2000, Bethily Becamon drove from her home to a small strip mall at 336 Wilson Avenue in Toronto. She had a G1 licence, which required her to be accompanied by a fully licensed driver with at least four years' experience. For the first time, she chose to drive alone — a clear violation of her licence conditions.

While attempting to park at the strip mall, Becamon stepped on the gas instead of the brake. Her vehicle mounted the sidewalk and struck pedestrian Mian Daud Shah in front of the Bagel World store. Shah sued for damages, but Wawanesa Insurance refused to provide full coverage, arguing that Becamon's licence violation voided her policy under Statutory Condition 4(1), which requires drivers to be "authorized by law" to operate the vehicle.

Issues

1. Did Becamon's guilty pleas to Highway Traffic Act charges create issue estoppel, preventing her from arguing she was authorized to drive?
2. Was the strip mall parking lot a "highway" under the Highway Traffic Act, making her licence violations applicable to the accident?

The Guilty Plea Question

Becamon had pleaded guilty to driving without being accompanied by a qualified driver and received a $105 fine. Wawanesa argued this admission bound her in civil court. But the Court of Appeal disagreed, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Toronto v. C.U.P.E. The stakes in the original proceeding were too minor ($105 fine) compared to the civil lawsuit (potentially hundreds of thousands in damages). The court also noted that Becamon was likely unrepresented and had obvious English language difficulties — she testified with a Tagalog interpreter. Fairness dictated that her quick guilty plea shouldn't bind her in the much more serious civil proceeding.

The "Highway" Definition

This was the crucial question. Under the Highway Traffic Act, section 1(1) defines "highway" to include any place "intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles." Wawanesa argued the strip mall qualified because some drivers used it as a shortcut between Wilson Avenue and Bathurst Street.

The court rejected this argument, relying on Gill v. Elwood and R. v. Mansour. The test is what the "paramount use" of the property is. Despite some through-traffic, the evidence showed the parking lot was "established primarily for" and overwhelmingly used as parking for store customers. The court emphasized you must view the premises "as a whole" — you can't carve out specific sections and analyze them separately.

Key Takeaway

Private parking lots are generally not "highways" under the HTA, even if some public through-traffic occurs.

This means licence restrictions and many traffic laws don't apply on private property like shopping malls, apartment complexes, or private driveways — though other laws like impaired driving still apply everywhere.