THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2011 SKCA 23 Date: 20110216 Between: Docket: 1675 Michelle Buckton Appellant - and - Saskatchewan Government Insurance Respondent Coram: Jackson, Richards & Ottenbreit JJ.A. Counsel: Jonathan S. Abrametz for the Appellant Steven A. Haichert for the Respondent

Appeal: From: 2008 SKAIA 44 Heard: February 16, 2011 Disposition: Appeal Dismissed (orally) Written Reasons: February 22, 2011 By: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ottenbreit In Concurrence: The Honourable Madam Justice Jackson The Honourable Mr. Justice Richards Ottenbreit J.A. [1] Counsel for the parties have assisted greatly in refining the issues in this appeal. They are whether the Automobile Injury AppealCommission correctly stated the applicable law respecting the causation required for the purposes of “bodily injury caused by a motorvehicle” as set forth in ss. 2(

h) and 101(1.1) of The Automobile Accident Insurance Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. A-35 and correctly applied thatlaw. In our view, the Automobile Injury Appeal Commission made no error in either respect. The Automobile Injury AppealCommission clearly stated the two-part test in Amos v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, (SCC), [1995] 3S.C.R. 405 and was clearly aware that causation need not be direct or proximate.

Moreover, the Automobile Injury Appeal Commissioncorrectly found on all the evidence that the two potential factors which the appellant proffered as the cause of death, i.e. chest traumaand stress of the accident, either leading to cardiac arrest, were not contributing factors to the death of Michael Nesvold. Accordingly,the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.