An Ontario auto insurer just learned the hard way that claims involving minors do not expire on schedule.
In a decision released on April 15, 2026, the Licence Appeal Tribunal ruled that Intact Insurance Company cannot rely on the two-year limitation period to shut down an accident benefits dispute brought by a minor claimant - even though the application landed more than three and a half years after the last denial.
The case involves [A.J.], who was just 11 years old when she was injured in a motor vehicle accident on November 15, 2019. She applied for statutory accident benefits from Intact, including non-earner benefits, psychological assessments, psychological services, and physiotherapy. Intact denied all five claimed benefits between August 2020 and November 2021. But the application to the Tribunal was not filed until July 8, 2025 - three years, seven months, and nine days after that final denial.
Intact argued the claim was dead on arrival. The two-year window under section 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule had long closed, the insurer said, and the applicant should be barred from proceeding.
Adjudicator Melanie Malach disagreed. She found that the Limitations Act, which suspends limitation periods for minors who do not have a litigation guardian, applies to proceedings before the Tribunal. Her reasoning drew on the Divisional Court's decision in Botbyl v. Heartland Farm Mutual Inc., which held that the word "court" in the Insurance Act includes the Tribunal. Extending that logic, the adjudicator concluded that the same reasoning applies to the Limitations Act - meaning its protections for minors carry over into the accident benefits system.
Here is where the case gets particularly pointed for claims professionals. Intact argued that the applicant's mother had been acting as a litigation guardian all along - she signed the OCF-1 application for benefits, all correspondence was directed to her care, and legal counsel had been retained. The Tribunal was not persuaded. The adjudicator found that signing an OCF-1 is simply a parent doing what is needed to get benefits for a child. It does not amount to a formal appointment as litigation guardian. That only happened when the mother signed a Representing Minors form on the day the Tribunal application was filed - July 8, 2025. Until that point, the limitation clock had never started running.
The decision was not a total loss for Intact. The Tribunal barred the applicant from proceeding on two treatment plans - a $2,200.00 psychological assessment and $3,335.98 in psychological services - after she failed to attend a rescheduled Insurer's Examination under section 44 of the Schedule. The applicant pointed to COVID-19 disruptions and the lack of a litigation guardian, but the Tribunal found she had counsel at the time who could have communicated with the insurer and did not.
The takeaway for auto insurers is straightforward. Parental involvement in a minor's claim - even active involvement - does not start the limitation clock. Files involving children injured in accidents may stay live far longer than the standard two-year timeline suggests, and insurers should plan accordingly.
