OCA distinguishes between notice of accident and of intent to seek benefits

In Jakupovic v. Intact Insurance Company, 2026 ONCA 651, the respondent had a motor vehicle accident on Feb. 13, 2019. The next day, he reported the accident and the property damage to his vehicle to the appellant insurance company. 

Accident benefits claim

On Dec. 12, 2020, the respondent insured applied for accident benefits before the insurer, thus informing it of his intention to claim such benefits.

Initially, the appellant insurer approved the respondent’s claim. However, the insurer later questioned whether the respondent’s claim was statute-barred. 

The insurer told the respondent that it would end his entitlement to benefits on Apr. 14, 2022, based on late reporting. 

Licence Appeal Tribunal proceedings

On Dec. 28, 2022, before the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), the respondent applied for dispute resolution under the SABS. 

On Dec. 22, 2023, an adjudicator found that the respondent failed to comply with s. 32(1) of the SABS because he did not notify the insurer of his intention to claim accident benefits within seven days.

The respondent requested a reconsideration under r. 18 of the License Appeal Tribunal Rules. On May 21, 2024, the LAT rejected that request and affirmed the original decision. 

The respondent appealed against the LAT decisions. 

Divisional Court favours insured

On Feb. 7, 2025, the Divisional Court allowed the respondent’s appeal. The court determined that the respondent complied with s. 32(1) of the SABS by reporting the accident. 

The insurer appealed. On Oct. 9, 2025, the Ontario Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal. 

Ontario Court of Appeal grants insurer’s appeal

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the insurer’s appeal and set aside the Divisional Court decision. The appeal court restored the LAT decisions dated Dec. 22, 2023, and May 21, 2024. 

The appeal court awarded the insurer all-inclusive costs of $10,000 and set aside the Divisional Court’s costs award. 

Error in interpretation of s. 32(1) of SABS

The Ontario Court of Appeal explained that s. 32(1) of the SABS plainly, clearly, and unambiguously required an individual who had an accident and who intended to claim accident benefits to notify the insurer of their intention to do so. 

The appeal court clarified that s. 32(1) did not impose on the insurer an onus to inquire whether the insured intended to submit a SABS application to initiate the process of benefit payments. 

The appeal court held that the Divisional Court erred in law by: 

• focusing on the SABS being consumer protection legislation instead of complying with established statutory interpretation principles 
• weighing two competing interpretations in the context of the regulation’s purposes, without first addressing whether the text, context, and purpose pointed toward a clear meaning when read together 
• rewriting the provisions in a manner that rendered s. 32(1) of the SABS meaningless 
• finding that s. 32(1) required an insurer that received notice of its insured’s motor vehicle accident to assume that the insured would pursue a SABS claim 
• engaged in an interpretation that reversed the trigger under the statute, contradicted its own jurisprudence, and required insurers to initiate accident benefits claims for every reported accident, regardless of whether the insured sustained injuries, which would lead to an absurd result 

As supported by s. 258 of Ontario’s Insurance Act, 1990, the appeal court emphasized that the legislature clearly distinguished between notice of the occurrence of an incident and notice of an intention to claim benefits. 

Scope of appellate review

The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the Divisional Court erred by exceeding the scope of appropriate appellate review and finding its own facts. 

The appeal court added that the Divisional Court made factual findings that far exceeded a consideration of the s. 32(1) provisions and contradicted the LAT’s factual findings, rather than restricting its decision to legal questions. 

The appeal court concluded that the Divisional Court referred to medical evidence that post-dated the LAT decision, which was procedurally unfair and was beyond the proper scope of appellate review. 

More appeal court cases on motor vehicle accidents

Here are some other recent decisions by the Court of Appeal for Ontario involving vehicular accidents. 

On June 18, the appeal court dismissed a woman’s action for damages for her post-concussion syndrome arising from a motor vehicle accident upon determining that she commenced her claim beyond the relevant limitation period. 

In proceedings arising from injuries sustained in a motor vehicle collision, the appeal court issued a May 14 decision setting aside a Superior Court judge’s order requiring Tribunals Ontario to produce hundreds of internal records of the Licence Appeal Tribunal. 

Enjoy this story? Read the latest personal injury law news on the main page!