Ontario's accident benefits landscape is shifting - and insurers relying on deadline defences should take note.
In a decision released on February 10, 2026, the Licence Appeal Tribunal ruled that TTC Insurance Company Limited could not bar an applicant from pursuing statutory accident benefits, even though he missed both the seven-day notice window and the 30-day application deadline under the Schedule. In reaching her decision in Sneyd v. TTC Insurance Company Limited, 2026 ONLAT 25-008282/AABS-PI, Adjudicator Melanie Malach relied on the Hussein v. Intact Insurance Company ruling from 2025 - and it landed squarely against the insurer.
Here is what happened. On June 3, 2023, Michael Sneyd was involved in an accident with a bus insured by TTC Insurance. He did not formally notify the insurer of his intention to claim accident benefits within seven days, as required under s. 32(1) of the Schedule. He also submitted his completed application - the OCF-1 - on October 3, 2023, roughly two months past the 30-day deadline set out in s. 32(5).
TTC Insurance denied benefits and argued that Sneyd was barred from even bringing his claim to the Tribunal.
Adjudicator Malach disagreed.
On the notice issue, she found that TTC Insurance already knew about the accident through its own internal reporting. The insurer had left voicemails for Sneyd on June 20 and June 26, 2023, and mailed him an Accident Benefits Package on June 30. In other words, the insurer was not caught off guard. Drawing on the Hussein decision, which established that insurers have a positive obligation to inquire and assist insured persons - and cannot simply rely on the insured person's inaction to determine that no benefits will be claimed - the Adjudicator found the insurer's notice defence did not hold up.
On the late OCF-1, the Tribunal accepted Sneyd's explanation. He believed he needed his doctor and employer to complete sections of the forms before he could submit them. His family doctor referred him to a physiotherapist, who then sent him to a neurologist and an orthopedic surgeon. Meanwhile, a union strike at his workplace meant no one was available to fill out the employer portion. The Adjudicator found these amounted to a reasonable explanation under s. 34 of the Schedule and that the two-month delay caused limited prejudice to the insurer, while shutting Sneyd out of his claim entirely would cause significant hardship.
The takeaway for insurers is straightforward. If you are already aware of an accident, have reached out to the claimant, and have sent application materials, arguing that the claimant technically missed a filing deadline is going to be a tough sell - especially with Hussein now part of the Tribunal's toolkit.
This is a preliminary decision. Sneyd has been allowed to proceed. The merits of his benefits claim have not yet been decided.
