An Ontario tribunal has ruled that a young accident victim's excuses for filing his benefits claim a year late did not hold up.

The case began with a single-vehicle crash on June 15, 2024. The claimant, then 17 years old, was a passenger in a vehicle driven by a relative. The driver reported the accident to CAA Insurance Company on June 25, 2024. CAA phoned the claimant two days later and mailed him an accident benefits package the day after that.

Under Ontario's accident benefits rules, claimants must submit their application, known as an OCF-1, within 30 days of receiving that package. The claimant didn't file his until June 19, 2025, nearly a year after the crash. CAA denied the claim on January 16, 2026, saying his explanation for the delay wasn't reasonable, and the dispute moved to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

At an examination under oath, the claimant said he didn't own a cellphone at the time of the accident and that a caseworker he saw monthly never helped him complete the paperwork. CAA pushed back, noting it had reached him by phone at a number he confirmed was the best way to contact him. The insurer asked him to hand over his cellphone records and his file with the child welfare agency supervising him, to test those claims. He refused, arguing the records weren't relevant to the timing dispute.

Adjudicator Melanie Malach wasn't convinced. She ruled that the missing records were central to judging whether the claimant's evidence was credible, and that withholding them hurt his case. She also pointed out he was managing plenty on his own during that period, including a bank account, a summer job, and his own apartment, which she said undercut the idea that his age alone explained the delay.

The claimant also argued that Ontario's Limitations Act should push his filing deadline back to his 18th birthday. Malach found that even with that extension, he still filed five months late.

CAA argued the delay hurt its ability to investigate the claim while the evidence was fresh, and flagged inconsistencies in the claimant's account of a hospital visit as a further credibility problem. Malach agreed those concerns added to the harm CAA suffered from the late filing.

In the end, Malach ruled the claimant hadn't shown a reasonable explanation for the delay. She barred him from pursuing the claim and dismissed the application, wiping out the hearing dates that had been set for November 2026.