Written By: Gary Cerriku
Reviewed By: Douglas Treilhard
In Jakupovic v. Intact Insurance Company, 2026 ONCA 651 (Jakupovic), the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified the notice requirement an insured must meet in order to claim Statutory Accident Benefits (“SABs”).
Merely reporting a motor vehicle accident to an insurer is not notice of an intention to claim SABs. Section 32(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – Effective September 1, 2010, O. Reg. 34/10 (the “Schedule”) requires a person who intends to apply for benefits to notify the insurer of that intention no later than the seventh day after the circumstances arose that give rise to the entitlement, or as soon as practicable after that day.
Justice Wilson, writing for the court, held that s. 32(1) is plain, clear and mandatory. The consumer protection purpose of the SABs regime cannot be used to impose obligations on insurers that the text does not contain.
Factual Background
On February 13, 2019, Mr. Jakupovic was involved in a motor vehicle accident. The next day he contacted his insurer, Intact, and reported the accident and the damage to his vehicle.[1] He spoke with Intact several times about the property damage. However, he did not tell Intact that he intended to claim SABs until December 12, 2020, when he submitted an Application for Accident Benefits (OCF-1).[2]
Intact initially approved the application but later terminated his entitlement to benefits due to late reporting.[3] A Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) adjudicator found that Mr. Jakupovic had failed to comply with s. 32(1). The adjudicator also rejected his explanation for the delay as not credible.[4] His request for reconsideration was dismissed. On appeal, the Divisional Court reversed. It held that reporting the accident was sufficient notice and that a reasonable insurer would have assumed the insured wanted accident benefits.[5] Intact appealed with leave.
Court of Appeal Decision
The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Divisional Court erred in law in holding that merely reporting an accident satisfies the notice requirement in s. 32(1).[6]
Justice Wilson allowed the appeal and restored the LAT’s decisions. The court held that s. 32(1) is not ambiguous. It requires the insured to notify the insurer of an intention to claim benefits. That notice sets the remaining steps in motion. The insurer must then provide application forms and an explanation of benefits under s. 32(2), and the insured must return a completed application in a timely manner.[7]
The court rejected an argument made by the claimant and by the intervener, the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association. They argued that once an accident is reported, insurers must make inquiries to find out whether the insured was injured.[8] The Divisional Court erred by weighing competing interpretations against that purpose before asking whether the text, context and purpose together pointed to a clear meaning.[9] Policy objectives, however laudable, do not permit courts to adopt interpretations that are inconsistent with the text.
The court emphasized that the legislature has drawn a clear distinction between notice of an incident and notice of an intention to claim. Referring to ss. 258.1(1) and 258.3(1) of the Insurance Act, the court noted that the legislature treats notice of an accident separately from notice of an intention to take action.[10] If the legislature had meant that reporting an accident was enough, it could have said so.
The court also highlighted that the Schedule already deals with late notice. The words “as soon as practicable” in s. 32(1) and the reasonable explanation provision in s. 34 act as the regime’s “safety valves”.[11]
Finally, the court held that the Divisional Court went beyond the scope of an appeal limited to questions of law. It made general findings about the vulnerability of injured claimants and what consumers know about SABs, none of which was in the record. It also relied on medical evidence dated after the LAT decision.[12]
Takeaways
The court’s decision in Jakupovic provides clarity for insurers and claimants operating within Ontario’s SABs regime.
Jakupovic holds that notice of an accident is not notice of a claim. Claimants and their advisors should not assume that reporting property damage preserves an accident benefits claim. Notice of an intention to apply for benefits should be given expressly, in writing, within seven days.
Looking ahead, the reasoning in Jakupovic may reach beyond the SABs regime. A strict approach may suggest that notice given under one coverage will not necessarily count as notice under another in the same policy. For instance, query whether and in what circumstances an application for SABs would also satisfy the obligation to provide “written notice of the claim within thirty days after the accident” in accordance with section 6(2) of the Uninsured Automobile Coverage regulation.
[1] Jakupovic v. Intact Insurance Company, 2026 ONCA 651 at para 3.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid, at para 4.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid, at para 5.
[6] Ibid, at para 9.
[7] Ibid, at para 14.
[8] Ibid, at para 16.
[9] Ibid, at para 17.
[10] Ibid, at para 21.
[11] Ibid, at para 23.
[12] Ibid, at paras 27-29.
