What is the test for a motor vehicle accident under s. 79(1) of the Insurance Code of Canada?

In Amos, the insured was attacked by a gang while driving his van in California. He was shot while distancing himself from his assailants. Major J. found that, as the insured was driving his van down a street, the accident clearly resulted from the ordinary use to which automobiles are put. Therefore, the purpose test was easily met. In considering the causation test, Major J. concluded that this was also satisfied. He held at paras. 24 to 26: 24 This appeal does not present the typical motor vehicle accident. A bullet, rather than a motor vehicle, was the cause of the injury. However, a motor vehicle need not be the instrument of the injury to satisfy the causal connection requirement. Injuries which do not arise from the negligent use of a motor vehicle may be covered by s. 79(1). 25 Was the attack in this case merely a random shooting, or did it arise out of the ownership, use or operation of the appellant’s vehicle? While the appellant’s van may have been singled out by his assailants on a random basis, the shooting which caused the appellant’s injuries was not random. The appellant’s vehicle was not merely the situs of the shooting. The shooting appears to have been the direct result of the assailants’ failed attempt to gain entry to the appellant’s van. It is not important whether the shooting was accidental or deliberate while entry to the vehicle was being attempted. It is important that the shooting was not random but a shooting that arose out of the appellant’s ownership, use and operation of his vehicle. (For an analogous example of the application of the causal connection test, see McIndoe v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia (1990), 45 C.C.L.I. 68 (B.C.S.C.).) 26 If the appellant had not been shot, but had lost control of his car while trying to get away from his assailants, the injuries suffered as a result of a subsequent car crash would surely be covered by the respondent. Similarly, if the appellant had suffered injuries as a result of being intentionally hit by those same assailants using a car instead of a gun, the respondent would not deny coverage. I do not think the instant case can be distinguished from the foregoing hypothetical examples. Generally speaking, where the use or operation of a motor vehicle in some manner contributes to or adds to the injury, the plaintiff is entitled to coverage. (emphasis mine)