A dispute about a recurring deduction can become much larger than a single claim when the same policy wording is used across an industry. Barnard v. The Portage Mutual Insurance Company, 2026 NSSC 64, examines that problem in Nova Scotia's mandatory automobile accident benefit system.
The proposed class action challenged deductions from Section B weekly indemnity benefits. The plaintiffs argued that insurers had improperly deducted collateral disability payments, including Employment Insurance disability benefits, from amounts otherwise payable under the standard automobile policy.
Certification requires more than identifying a common insurance practice. The proposed class has to be legally workable, the common issues must genuinely advance the claims and the representative plaintiff must have a claim that aligns with the class being proposed.
The Court narrowed the case significantly. It found that a class and common issues focused on Employment Insurance disability deductions could otherwise satisfy the certification framework. Broader theories and remedies did not survive in the same way. The remaining difficulty was the representative plaintiff. The person proposed to lead the action did not adequately fit the narrowed class.
Rather than end the proceeding immediately, the Court deferred the final certification decision for one month to allow class counsel to seek an appropriate substitute representative.
The insurance significance lies in the common wording problem. When mandatory policy terms are administered consistently across many claims, a disputed interpretation can potentially affect a large group of insureds. At the same time, certification is not a ruling that the insurers interpreted the wording incorrectly. It determines whether the dispute can proceed collectively.
No final certification order was made in this decision. The case therefore remains an important but incomplete step in the litigation over how Employment Insurance disability benefits interact with Section B weekly indemnity payments.