Definity Insurance Company has been ordered to pay for a laptop, iPhone, iPad and a Phonak Roger hearing system claimed by a severely injured driver, after an Ontario License Appeal Tribunal adjudicator rejected the insurer's argument that the devices were convenience purchases rather than reasonable and necessary accident benefits.
In a decision released May 8, 2026, adjudicator Jim Zotalis ruled in favor of applicant Craig Zurbrigg on three out of four disputed treatment plans tied to his June 20, 2023 motor vehicle accident.
Zurbrigg suffered extensive injuries, including severe traumatic brain injury with subarachnoid and subdural hemorrhage, bilateral temporal and sphenoid bone fractures, a complex pelvic fracture, splenic laceration, vision and hearing impairment, and cognitive impairment. The case turned on whether the proposed technology met the "reasonable and necessary" test under sections 15 and 16 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
Definity had approved most items in a DMA Rehability treatment plan but denied $904.94 for a laptop, carrying case, and the time required to purchase the laptop. The insurer argued the request fit poorly within s.16(3)(i) of the Schedule, which covers home modifications and communication aids, calling the laptop a matter of "convenience, more than any other reason." It pointed to Zurbrigg's existing desktop computer and questioned why it could not be relocated.
Zotalis disagreed, citing a September 10, 2024 letter from neuropsychologist Dr. Susan Pigott describing Zurbrigg's working memory difficulties and concluding he would need consistent, non-shared computer access to compensate for accident-related impairments. The adjudicator found the evidence persuasive and granted the claim with interest.
Definity also opposed a $4,767.88 plan for an iPhone, iPad, keyboard and stand, arguing the applicant's existing devices were reaching end of life and that any screen-size improvement would be negligible. It urged the tribunal to follow C.S. v. Co-Operators General Insurance Company, 2020 CanLII 51287 (ON LAT), where a cell phone was found to be a discretionary expense rather than a communication aid.
Zotalis distinguished that decision. Medical evidence showed Zurbrigg could no longer recall lyrics while performing with his band and that an iPad application could compensate. The adjudicator also distinguished Kucheran-Grenier v. The Co-Operators, 2023 CanLII 96326 (ON LAT), which Definity relied on, noting that the applicant there had not produced medical evidence supporting the requested devices. The iPhone and iPad, he held, functioned as communicative aids restoring pre-accident functioning.
On hearing technology, Definity had previously approved $6,985.00 for permanent hearing aids, less $1,000 available through the Ontario Assistive Device Program, and argued Zurbrigg reported being pleased with them. But Zotalis accepted that the Phonak Roger system performed a distinct function - isolating speech from background noise - and approved the $2,450.00 treatment plan from MedEar.
The applicant lost on one item. The $1,898.40 trial and demonstration of the Phonak Roger system was denied because Zurbrigg made no submissions on the reasonableness of that cost, leaving the tribunal unable to assess it.
Interest applies under s. 51 of the Schedule on the overdue benefits awarded.
