Ontario's Licence Appeal Tribunal sided with Intact Insurance Company after doorbell video and medical records undercut a pedestrian's account of being struck by a vehicle.
The Tribunal's decision, released August 7, 2026, dismissed an application for statutory accident benefits after the applicant failed to prove the incident met the definition of an "accident" under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - and was separately barred for notifying the insurer more than 200 days late.
The applicant alleged he was walking his dog in his neighbourhood on June 30, 2024, when a vehicle struck him twice, first clipping his hip, then hitting his back and knocking him to the ground. He said the driver later followed him home and threw a glass bottle at him, causing a leg laceration.
Intact denied the claim, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an "accident" under section 3(1) of the Schedule and that it amounted to an assault rather than a vehicle-related accident.
Vice-Chair Trina Morissette applied the two-part test from Economical Mutual Insurance Company v. Caughy and found the applicant had not met the purpose test - establishing that a vehicle struck him at all. Ring doorbell footage submitted in evidence contradicted several of his claims, including his account that he was still fleeing toward his home when the driver arrived; the footage showed he had already entered the house and then came back outside carrying an axe.
Hospital records from the day of the incident noted only the bottle-related laceration, with no reference to a vehicle strike or to the buttock, hip, and gravel-in-hand injuries the applicant said he sustained. His family doctor's notes were similarly silent on any vehicle impact. Morissette found the applicant's self-reports, without corroborating evidence, carried little weight.
The applicant had already failed the purpose test, so Morissette did not need to consider whether a vehicle directly caused any impairment.
The Tribunal also found the applicant did not notify Intact of the incident within the seven-day window required by section 32(1), instead waiting until January 27, 2025 and submitting his completed application on February 6, 2025 - over 200 days post-accident. He argued he lacked a reasonable explanation, citing fear of retaliation, his mother's terminal illness, and unfamiliarity with pedestrian eligibility for accident benefits.
Morissette rejected each explanation, finding the applicant's own evidence confirmed none of these factors actually prevented him from notifying the insurer sooner. Citing the guiding principle that "ignorance of the law alone is not a reasonable explanation," she found the delay caused Intact prejudice in investigating and assessing the claim that outweighed any hardship to the applicant.
The applicant was barred under section 55(1) from proceeding with his application before the Tribunal, and the application was dismissed.
