An Ontario tribunal rejected an injured driver's bid to make his auto insurer cover dog-walking services and a laptop as accident benefits.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal released its decision in Duhaney v Security National Insurance Company, 2026 CanLII 56630 (ON LAT), on June 10, 2026, dismissing a statutory accident benefits dispute that tested the outer edges of what counts as rehabilitation.
Dane Duhaney was hurt in an automobile accident on August 16, 2022, and sought benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. Security National Insurance Company denied two treatment plans, and Duhaney brought the dispute to the Tribunal.
The first plan, proposed by Pursuit Health Management and dated February 13, 2023, sought $2,337.32 for occupational therapy in the form of dog-walking services. Duhaney owned a high-energy German Shorthaired Pointer that he had run with most mornings before the accident. He said profound orthopaedic injuries to his lower leg left him unable to walk the dog, and that he paid out of pocket for a dog walker from January to October 2023.
Duhaney argued the cost fit under section 16(3)(l) of the Schedule, which covers other goods and services essential to an insured person's rehabilitation. He pointed to an email from nurse practitioner Jennifer Arthurs recommending approval to prevent further injury and avoid regression in his recovery.
Adjudicator Melanie Malach was not persuaded. She accepted that the accident prevented Duhaney from walking the dog, but found the services focused on the dog's needs, not his own rehabilitation. She noted he offered no medical evidence or expert opinion that the relationship carried therapeutic value, observing that "submissions are not evidence."
The adjudicator agreed with the insurer that the dog-walking services were replacement services Duhaney had performed himself before the accident, and that the Schedule does not cover replacing tasks a person provided to family, pets, or similar obligations. She drew on two authorities the insurer cited - the Ontario Insurance Commission decision in Ferreyra and the Divisional Court ruling in G.B. v. Pilot, which found nanny services were not a rehabilitative benefit - and concluded that caring for a pet, like caring for a child, cannot be recovered as a rehabilitation benefit.
The second plan, proposed by Fern Speech and Language Services and dated September 27, 2023, sought $2,612.22 for vocational and academic training, including a laptop, accessories, and an online college course tied to speech-language pathology support.
Here the insurer relied on the insurer examination report of speech-language pathologist Jennifer Peacock, dated February 27, 2024. Malach accepted that Duhaney exhibited cognitive communication dysfunction linked to the accident and that the plan had merit. But she agreed with Peacock that critical specifics were missing - the particular course and how it supported retraining, and the type of laptop and accessories behind the flat $2,000 request. No further detail was supplied, leaving the insurer unable to assess reasonableness and necessity.
Malach found Duhaney had not met his burden on either plan. Because no benefits were overdue, no interest was payable under section 51. The application was dismissed.
For claims professionals, the decision is a reminder that benefits track the insured person's own rehabilitation, and that treatment plans without particulars can be denied on that basis alone.
