Consumer Protection Doesn’t Override Statutory Interpretation
Everyone working in accident benefits knows that the SABS are consumer protection legislation. But what happens when a consumer protection argument runs into the actual words of the regulation?
The newly released Court of Appeal decision in Jakupovic v. Intact Insurance Company provides a clear answer. Consumer protection remains an important part of interpreting the SABS, but it cannot be used to give a provision a meaning that the text, read in context and in light of its purpose, can’t support.
As the Court emphasized, the statutory text “remains the anchor of the interpretive exercise.”
That principle drove the Court’s interpretation of the notice requirements in s. 32 of the SABS. It also provides some useful practical guidance for adjusters about what should happen when an insured first reports an accident.
Section 32(1) requires a person who intends to apply for accident benefits to notify the insurer of that intention within seven days after the circumstances giving rise to the entitlement to the benefit, or as soon as practicable thereafter.
Jakupovic v. Intact: Background and Late Notice of a SABS Claim
The underlying facts are relatively straightforward. Mr. Jakupovic was involved in a motor vehicle accident on February 13, 2019. He reported the accident to Intact the following day and had several subsequent communications with the insurer concerning the significant damage to his vehicle. What he did not do at that time was advise Intact that he was injured or that he intended to claim accident benefits. He submitted his application for accident benefits 22 months later.
At the LAT, Adjudicator Tavlin Kaur found that reporting the accident was not enough to satisfy s. 32(1). The LAT held that s. 32(1) required notice of an intention to apply for accident benefits and did not require Intact to inquire whether Mr. Jakupovic intended to make such a claim.
The Divisional Court reversed that decision, concluding that the accident report was sufficient notice and emphasizing the consumer protection purpose of the SABS. The Court of Appeal has now reversed the Divisional Court and restored Adjudicator Kaur’s original decision.
Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies Notice Under Section 32 of the SABS
The Court of Appeal began with the familiar modern approach to statutory interpretation: “the words [of a provision] must be read in their entire context, in their grammatical and ordinary sense, harmoniously with the scheme and object of the legislation and the intention of the legislature.” Purpose matters, but, as the Court emphasized, the statutory text “remains the anchor of the interpretive exercise.”
Section 32 Requires Notice of an Intention to Claim Accident Benefits
Applying that approach to s. 32(1), the Court found the language unambiguous:
It requires a person who is involved in an accident and who intends to claim benefits to notify the insurer of their intention to do so. This is plain, clear language and it is mandatory.
That distinction was critical. Reporting that an accident occurred is not the same thing as notifying the insurer of an intention to claim accident benefits. The Court found that the Divisional Court’s interpretation effectively removed the requirement that the insured communicate that intention. As the Court put it succinctly, “Simply put, s. 32(1) does not say this.”
The Court also rejected the proposition that s. 32 imposes an obligation on an insurer, once an accident has been reported, to ask whether the insured was injured or intends to make an accident benefits claim. Section 32 places the initial obligation on the person who intends to apply for benefits to notify the insurer. That notice then triggers the insurer’s obligations under s. 32(2), including providing the appropriate forms and information.
Consumer Protection Cannot Override the Text of the SABS
Importantly, the Court did not suggest that consumer protection is unimportant to the interpretation of the SABS. On the contrary, it expressly confirmed that its analysis “does not discount the purpose of the SABS” as consumer protection legislation. Rather, the error was allowing that purpose to produce an interpretation that the language of s. 32 could not support. As the Court observed, even “laudable” policy objectives cannot support an interpretation inconsistent with the statutory text and context.
What Jakupovic Means for the Initial Report of an Accident
Jakupovic tells us what s. 32 requires. It should not be read as an instruction to adjusters to ask fewer questions.
There is, however, an important distinction between what the SABS require and good claims handling practice. Asking whether the insured was injured remains a sensible question at first report.
If the answer is yes, a prudent claims-handling approach is to send the accident benefits package rather than engage in a technical inquiry into whether the insured has formally expressed an intention to claim benefits. If the answer is no, document that too.
The contemporaneous log notes matter. In Jakupovic, Adjudicator Kaur relied on the adjuster’s notes, which documented communications about the accident and property damage but no report of injury or intention to seek accident benefits. The lesson is simple: record the question and the answer.
When the Accident Benefits Application Arrives Late
When an accident benefits application arrives months later, the first step is to go back to the beginning.
Review the original log notes and communications. When was an intention to claim accident benefits first communicated? After Jakupovic, knowledge of the accident should not be treated as notice of an intention to claim benefits.
If the notice requirements in s. 32 were not met, the analysis does not necessarily end there. The SABS themselves provide some flexibility, including the requirement that notice be given “as soon as practicable” and, where applicable, the reasonable explanation provisions in s. 34.
The important point is to work through those provisions rather than beginning from the assumption that the original accident report was itself sufficient notice.
Practical Takeaways for Ontario Accident Benefits Adjusters
For adjusters, Jakupovic provides a useful framework for both the first report of an accident and a later accident benefits claim:
- Ask: At first report, asking whether the insured was injured remains sensible claims practice, even though Jakupovic confirms that s. 32 does not require the insurer to make that inquiry.
- Document: Record the question and the answer clearly in the log notes.
- Act: If injuries are reported, send the accident benefits package.
- Distinguish: Reporting an accident is not necessarily notice of an intention to claim accident benefits.
- Go back: If an application arrives late, review the original log notes and communications to determine what was actually communicated and when.
- Complete the analysis: If notice was late, consider the remainder of s. 32 and, where necessary, s. 34.
For counsel on either side, the same principle applies: start with the contemporaneous record, not the eventual OCF-1. Determine what was actually communicated about an intention to claim benefits, when it was communicated, and what the contemporaneous records show.
The SABS remain consumer protection legislation. Jakupovic does not change that. What it confirms is that consumer protection must operate through the statutory scheme; it cannot be used to rewrite it.
See Jakupovic v. Intact Insurance Company, 2026 ONCA 651
