Can Late Accident Benefit Notice Be Excused in Ontario?

What happens if you miss the deadline to apply for accident benefits in Ontario?

Missing the notice deadline does not automatically end your accident benefits claim, but it does put the burden on you to explain why. Under Ontario’s Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, injured people must notify their insurer of their intention to apply for benefits within a specific timeframe. The Licence Appeal Tribunal has the power to excuse a late notice — but only if your explanation is both credible and objectively reasonable.

In Jakupovic v. Intact Insurance Company, 2026 ONCA 651 (CanLII), Ontario’s Court of Appeal restored the LAT’s original finding that the claimant’s explanation was neither believable nor reasonable, reversing a Divisional Court decision that had gone the other way.

Does reporting a car accident to your insurer count as notice of a benefits claim?

No — reporting an accident and giving notice of an intention to apply for accident benefits are two separate legal steps. The Court of Appeal was clear that the statutory text means exactly what it says: telling your insurer an accident happened is not the same as telling them you plan to claim benefits under the Schedule. The Divisional Court had effectively blurred this distinction, and the Court of Appeal found that approach rewrote the statutory requirement rather than interpreted it.

This matters practically because many people assume that once they have reported a collision, their insurer is on notice of everything. That assumption can be costly. Our Ontario motor vehicle accident lawyers regularly see clients who did not realize these were separate obligations until it was too late.

What does a claimant have to prove to get relief from a late notice?

A claimant seeking relief under section 34 of the Schedule must satisfy the LAT that their explanation for the delay is genuinely credible — meaning the tribunal actually believes it — and objectively reasonable, meaning a reasonable person in similar circumstances might have acted the same way. Both elements must be present. An explanation that is plausible on paper but that the LAT does not find believable will not succeed.

In this case, the LAT made a finding that the claimant’s account did not meet either standard. The Court of Appeal confirmed that this kind of credibility assessment is squarely within the LAT’s role as the fact-finder, and a reviewing court is not free to substitute a different view of the facts.

Can a court on appeal overturn the LAT’s findings about credibility?

Generally, no. Appeals from the LAT to the Divisional Court are limited to questions of law only, under the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999. The Divisional Court is not permitted to re-weigh the evidence or make its own factual findings in place of the tribunal’s. The Court of Appeal found that the Divisional Court had crossed this line by substituting broad factual conclusions that contradicted what the LAT had decided.

The standard of review on a question of statutory interpretation — such as what the notice provision actually requires — is correctness, meaning the appellate court can step in if the tribunal got the law wrong. But the question of whether a particular claimant’s explanation was credible is a question of fact, not law, and it belongs to the LAT.

Is it procedurally fair to use medical evidence that came after the LAT decision?

No. The Court of Appeal found it procedurally unfair for the Divisional Court to rely on medical evidence that post-dated the LAT’s hearing when reviewing the tribunal’s decision. An appeal is confined to the record that was before the original decision-maker. Introducing later evidence to cast doubt on findings that were made without that evidence undermines the integrity of the process and falls outside the proper scope of appellate review.

This principle matters for anyone navigating the accident benefits system: the evidence you put before the LAT at the hearing stage is the evidence that counts. Detailed accident benefits claims require careful preparation before the hearing, not after.

What does this mean for accident benefit claimants across Ontario?

This decision is a firm reminder that procedural deadlines in the accident benefits system are taken seriously. The rules are applied according to their plain meaning, and the LAT’s factual findings carry significant weight. Claimants who miss notice deadlines face a real evidentiary burden, and the explanation they offer must genuinely hold up.

For people in the Hamilton and Burlington area dealing with accident benefit disputes, understanding these procedural requirements early can make a significant difference. Our Hamilton motor vehicle accident lawyers are familiar with how these issues play out at the LAT and on appeal.

Questions and records to discuss with a lawyer

• When exactly did you report the accident to your insurer, and what did you tell them at that time?
• Did you separately notify your insurer of your intention to apply for accident benefits, and if so, when?
• What records do you have — medical, employment, or otherwise — that might help explain any delay in giving notice?
• Has the LAT or any other tribunal already made findings about your claim that could affect an appeal?
• What accident benefit applications are still open or pending, and what deadlines apply to each?

If you have questions about an accident benefits claim or a notice deadline that may have been missed, you are welcome to reach out to UL Lawyers through /connect to discuss your own circumstances.

---

This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.