A dog leaping from a parked van. A seven-month delay. Ontario's Licence Appeal Tribunal has refused to revive a SABS claim against Definity Insurance Company.
Vice-Chair Craig Mazerolle dismissed Virginia Voll's reconsideration request on May 11, 2026, leaving intact a February 5, 2026 ruling that knocked out her statutory accident benefits claim on two preliminary issues.
The underlying incident is unusual. On May 7, 2024, Voll was walking on a paved path in a park near her home when she came within the vicinity of a parked van. A dog leaped out of the open window, bit her right arm and hand, and knocked her to the ground. The dog's owner was asleep in the van and woke up to remove the animal.
Voll later sought benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. The Tribunal initially found the incident did not meet the definition of "accident" under section 3(1) of the Schedule. It also found Voll failed to give notice within the timeline required by section 32(1), which obliges a person who intends to apply for accident benefits to notify the insurer no later than the seventh day after the circumstances arose, or as soon as practicable after that day.
Voll did not submit her completed OCF-1 until December 5, 2024 - seven months after the incident. Under section 34, a claimant can still proceed if they provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. Voll offered two. The first was that most people, especially an elderly layperson knocked down and mauled by a dog leaping from a parked vehicle, do not understand the distinction between a tort claim, a property claim, and a claim for statutory accident benefits. The second was that she was recovering from traumatic hand injuries and had been relying on others.
The Tribunal had rejected both explanations in the original decision. On reconsideration, Voll argued the Tribunal did not meaningfully apply the consumer protection mandate of the Schedule and focused too heavily on delay length and documentary proof. She pointed to Hussein v. Intact Insurance Company, 2025 ONSC 842, arguing the Divisional Court had excused delay in the context of a conventional motor vehicle collision.
Mazerolle was not persuaded. He found the original decision had already weighed the consumer protection mandate, the complicated nature of the incident, and the prejudice facing Definity from the delay. The reconsideration process, he wrote, "is not a venue for asking the Tribunal to re-litigate one's case."
He accepted Hussein is binding but found Voll had not explained how the original decision ran counter to the Divisional Court's guidance. With the delay finding serving as a complete bar to the application, Mazerolle declined to revisit whether the May 7, 2024 incident qualified as an "accident" under the Schedule.
For insurers and claims professionals, the decision reinforces the framework already in the Schedule. Section 32(1) sets the seven-day notice deadline. Section 34 allows continuation only with a reasonable explanation. And reconsideration will not be granted simply because a party disagrees with how the Tribunal weighed the evidence on either point.
