An Ontario tribunal confirmed an insurer need not fund an iPhone 13 Pro Max and Apple Watch for an injured accident-benefits claimant.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal released its reconsideration decision on July 21, 2026, handing the claimant a partial victory that changed nothing in practice. He proved the Tribunal had denied him unfairly - yet still walked away without the devices.
The dispute traces back to a September 7, 2011 accident and a claim under Ontario's Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. Among the benefits at issue was a treatment plan for assistive devices, submitted June 24, 2022, seeking funding for an iPhone 13 Pro Max and an Apple Watch. An occupational therapist prepared the plan, dated June 20, 2022.
In its original decision, the Tribunal denied that plan. The claimant asked for reconsideration, arguing the Tribunal had decided the matter on grounds neither party raised - namely, that the plan was "internally inconsistent" because it referenced different Apple device models. He also argued the Tribunal wrongly found no evidence of his cognitive, memory or fall-related impairments.
The adjudicator agreed. She found the claimant had established both a breach of procedural fairness and an error of fact, and granted reconsideration. But that win came with a catch. On re-examining the evidence, she confirmed the original denial.
The reason cuts to the heart of accident-benefits claims: the claimant carried the burden of showing, on a balance of probabilities, that the specific devices were reasonable and necessary. He did not meet it.
The insurer had already approved and provided a Samsung Galaxy S9 smartphone and a monthly phone plan. The claimant said he misplaced it. But the adjudicator noted he pointed to no authority requiring an insurer to replace a lost or misplaced device. She cited an earlier Tribunal decision finding an insurer was not obliged to repair a claimant's broken phone screen.
The claimant argued an iPhone would be easier to use given his cognitive impairments, and that a "Find My Phone" feature would help if he misplaced it again. The adjudicator was not persuaded - he offered no evidence that his lost phone lacked comparable features, and the insurer noted most smartphones carry similar functions.
The Apple Watch fared no better. The claimant, who has a spinal cord injury, said the watch's fall-detection feature was necessary for his safety. But the adjudicator found he had not explained why an Apple Watch - with its wide range of unrelated features - was required over devices built specifically for fall detection and medical alerts.
For insurers and claims professionals, the decision is a clean reminder. A procedural misstep can reopen a file, but it does not lower the evidentiary bar. Claimants must still tie each requested device to a demonstrated need - and an insurer is not on the hook to keep replacing equipment a claimant already received.
The Tribunal confirmed its denial of the June 24, 2022 treatment plan. The claimant was also found not entitled to an award.
