An Ontario tribunal has thrown out a driver's bid for five treatment plans, ruling he never showed any of them were needed.

The applicant was hurt in a car accident on July 24, 2021, and applied for statutory accident benefits from Intact Insurance Company. After Intact denied or only partly approved several treatment plans, he took the fight to Ontario's Licence Appeal Tribunal, which decided the case on written submissions alone, without either side appearing in person.

At stake were five plans from his occupational therapist: a home accessibility assessment worth $2,925.25 after a partial payment, two occupational therapy plans worth $4,692.52 and $6,147.20, an assistive devices plan worth $16,692.14, and a nutrition assessment worth $1,891.00. He also wanted interest on the unpaid amounts and an award of up to 50 per cent of the benefits, arguing Intact had dragged its feet.

Adjudicator Edward Langley released his decision on September 3, 2026, siding with Intact across the board. He found the applicant hadn't proven any of the plans were reasonable and necessary, and said the applicant mostly failed to explain why the money was owed at all. On the assistive devices plan, Langley wrote the applicant offered nothing beyond insisting the plan was arbitrarily denied.

On the home accessibility assessment, Langley agreed Intact had already paid the maximum allowed under the benefits schedule and found nothing to justify more. On the occupational therapy plans, Intact's own assessment found the applicant and his family actually wanted help with community-based activities, which falls under attendant care benefits - a different part of his coverage not at issue in this case. Langley also pointed to the applicant's own progress notes from May 2023, which said he was using a cane at night because "he is feeling better that way" - not exactly proof his condition had gotten worse, as he claimed.

The nutrition assessment fared no better. It had been referred by a physician at his treatment clinic and carried out by a dietician to look at weight management for pain and mobility, but the applicant never explained why it was needed beyond submitting the paperwork itself. Langley found the same gap in the assistive devices plan, adding that Intact had separately flagged a lack of evidence tying any cognitive decline to the accident.

With no benefits found owing, Langley denied interest and turned down the request for an award, finding no sign Intact had acted unreasonably. The application was dismissed in full.