Fridays with Rogers Partners

At our weekly meeting, Kate Ferguson discussed the recent decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal in Jakupovic v. Intact Insurance Company, 2026 ONCA 651.

Facts

The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident on February 13, 2019. The following day, he notified his automobile insurer, Intact, of the accident but did not indicate an intention to claim accident benefits. He first did so on December 12, 2020, by submitting an OCF-1 application, which Intact initially approved before terminating his entitlement due to late reporting.

Pursuant to s. 32(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (“SABS”), a person who intends to apply for accident benefits shall notify the insurer of their intention no later than the seventh day after the circumstances arose, or as soon as practicable after that day.

Procedural History

The plaintiff brought an application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) arguing that notifying Intact of the accident should have prompted further inquires about injuries from the insurer and information about the accident benefits process. The LAT dismissed this claim stating that this notification made no mention of injuries highlighting the difference between reporting the accident and notifying of the intention to seek accident benefits.

The plaintiff appealed to the Divisional Court which allowed the appeal on the basis that the SABS is consumer protection legislation, and must be interpreted in a manner consistent with its objective which is to reduce economic dislocation and hardship for victims of motor vehicle accidents.

Intact appealed this decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal allowed Intact’s appeal and held that s. 32(1) was clear and mandatory. A person intending to apply for accident benefits must notify the insurer of that intention within the prescribed time. Merely reporting that an accident occurred was insufficient. The Court rejected the argument that insurers must inquire after every accident whether the insured was injured or intended to claim benefits. This would reverse the statutory trigger, and require insurers to initiate benefits claims after every reported accident.

While the SABS is consumer-protection legislation, the Court noted its purpose could not displace the clear statutory language. Further stating the Divisional Court’s interpretation would effectively rewrite s. 32(1), and render it meaningless.