Northbridge's own correspondence just gave a claimant a pass on a three-year-late accident benefits application in Ontario.
In Koropatnicki v. Northbridge General Insurance Company, the Licence Appeal Tribunal ruled on April 27, 2026 that Grant Koropatnicki could proceed with his statutory accident benefits claim - even though he filed his application more than three years after receiving the required forms. The reason? The insurer's standard correspondence never made clear what would happen if he missed the deadline.
Koropatnicki was in a car accident on February 25, 2022, while driving with his wife and daughter. He reported a spinal injury that required surgery, along with injuries to his neck, back, left leg, foot, and hand. The case was further complicated by a pre-existing back condition - including surgery just one week before the accident.
Northbridge sent accident benefits packages to the family on March 11, 2022, and resent the applicant's package on May 3, 2022. His wife and daughter submitted their applications. Koropatnicki did not submit his completed application until March 19, 2025 - a full 1,104 days after the first package was sent.
Under Ontario's Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, applicants must file within 30 days of receiving the forms. Missing that window does not automatically kill a claim, but the applicant needs a reasonable explanation for the delay.
Vice-Chair Trina Morissette found one - in Northbridge's own words.
The cover letter that accompanied the benefits package told Koropatnicki: "[y]our benefits may be affected if you do not return [the OCF-1] within 30 days of receipt." Morissette held that from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with the insurance process, the word "may" suggested the insurer would simply consider all factors down the road - not that benefits could be denied outright.
Two other details worked against Northbridge. The insurer had accepted the wife's application - also filed past the 30-day window - without issue, and processed her claims. That reinforced the impression that filing late was not a dealbreaker. On top of that, Northbridge's May 2024 closing letter told Koropatnicki that file closure "does not limit your rights under the [Schedule] or preclude us from reopening your file within five years from the date of the accident should it become necessary." Morissette found that language left the door open.
Northbridge argued the three-year gap created real problems - especially given the pre-existing back condition that made it harder to determine what injuries were caused by the accident. The Tribunal agreed there was prejudice, but said the insurer had itself to blame: the vague language in its own communications was the root of the problem.
The applicant's other arguments - including that resending the application form reset the 30-day clock, and that estoppel should apply - were both rejected.
The matter will now proceed to a hearing on the merits.
For claims teams across Ontario, the message is straightforward: template language that softens or hedges around statutory deadlines can backfire. If the consequences of missing a filing window are not spelled out in plain terms, the Tribunal may use that ambiguity to excuse even a significant delay.
