A new Ontario tribunal ruling spells out exactly when Uber Eats and rideshare costs count as reimbursable auto insurance expenses.
The decision, released April 7, 2026, stems from a case involving a 10-year-old who was catastrophically injured in a high-speed car accident on November 30, 2023. The child, identified only as [SA], suffered a traumatic brain injury and spent more than two months between a hospital and a rehabilitation centre.
While the child recovered, the family ran up a considerable tab. Over roughly three months, they filed three OCF-6 expense claim forms with the insurer, Security National Insurance Company, totalling approximately $20,349.82 in visitor expenses. The charges covered Uber Eats deliveries, Uber rides, Whole Foods and Shoppers Drug Mart purchases, taxi fares, hotel stays, and a limousine ride to Scotiabank Arena.
The insurer fully reimbursed the first claim of $3,608.30. But it pushed back on the next two — one for $3,503.74 that was entirely denied, and another for $13,237.84 that was only partially approved at $3,197.78. That led to a hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal on December 2, 2025.
Adjudicator Dagmara Szczudlo landed on a geography-based approach. Meals delivered and rides taken to or from the hospital, rehabilitation centre, and temporary accommodations nearby were covered under section 22 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. But food deliveries sent to the family home and the grandparents' house - where the applicant's siblings were being looked after - were not.
The reasoning was straightforward: section 22 covers visitor expenses, not the household costs of caring for a visitor's other dependants.
On the specifics, Whole Foods receipts totalling $725.80 got the green light - those were for prepared meals and snacks, not grocery runs. Shoppers Drug Mart receipts of $225.86 did not make the cut — the tribunal found they covered personal care items and groceries. The $105.00 limousine to Scotiabank Arena was also struck down, with the adjudicator noting cheaper transportation was available. In all, the applicant was awarded $2,776.38 on the first disputed claim, and the parties were directed to recalculate what is owed on the second.
The tribunal also clarified a procedural point worth flagging: the 10-business-day insurer response requirement under section 38(8) of the Schedule does not apply to OCF-6 expense claims. It only kicks in for treatment and assessment plans.
Perhaps the sharpest takeaway came in the adjudicator's comments on how the dispute grew. The insurer was faulted for failing to set out clear reimbursement limits - per-meal caps, mileage rates, per diems - at the start of the claim. The family, meanwhile, was noted for not exercising restraint, particularly given that the meals came primarily from fast food franchises and the transportation stayed within the Greater Toronto Area.
Neither side came away clean. But for claims teams, the message is hard to miss: set expectations early, or risk sorting through a mountain of delivery app receipts at the back end.
