Much has been made about the fact that the Rules of Civil Procedure^[1] are about to be amended to overhaul the tort system^[2]. Less noticed, but just as consequential for day-to-day files, are the changes coming to Ontario’s no-fault accident benefits in July 2026. If you act in motor-vehicle cases, your intake, causation strategy, set-off analysis, and mediation posture are all going to shift.

What Actually Changes on July 1, 2026

Starting with policies issued or renewed on or after July 1, 2026, medical, rehabilitation and attendant-care benefits remain mandatory. Everything else becomes optional. That includes income-replacement (IRB), non-earner (NEB), caregiver, housekeeping/home maintenance, visitors’ expenses, lost educational expenses, damage to personal items, death and funeral benefits, dependant-care, and even indexation. Consumers (really, their brokers/insurers) will have to opt into these coverages and select limits<^[3]

The regulator has created a new selection/confirmation endorsement to make those choices explicit. The OPCF/OEF-47R^[4] (titled “Optional accident benefits coverage & priority of payment”) lists the menu of optional accident-benefit coverages and records what the policyholder bought and what they declined. It also contains a priority-of-payment clause so claimants can actually access the optional benefits they paid for under their own policy.

Two more structural changes matter:

• Caregiver and Housekeeping/Home-Maintenance can be offered on an “impairment” basis (not just CAT), though insurers may also offer CAT-only versions. That’s an intentional policy shift away from CAT-gatekeeping for these supports^[5].
• The Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA)^[6] has confirmed insurers must make the optional coverages available (bundled or individually) and must be transparent about premiums and limits. Expect variability between carriers, as I’m sure some will bundle aggressively, others will offer à-la-carte choices^[7].

What Happens to Existing Policies at Renewal?

There’s grandfathering. When a pre-July 2026 policy renews after July 1, 2026, the policyholder keeps their pre-reform accident-benefit mix (now treated as “optional”) unless and until they agree in writing to change or decline. There’s no regulator-imposed deadline to force a switch.

Translation for practitioners: always ask what the client had before and whether they clicked anything away during renewal^[8].

Who is Actually Covered by the Optional Choices?

Optional AB choices apply to the named insured, their spouse, their dependants, and listed drivers on that policy. That’s spelled out in the 47R endorsement text. Pedestrians, cyclists, passengers and other third parties without access to that policy won’t benefit from someone else’s “rich” optional package unless the priority rules put them on that policy in the first place^[9].

Weekly Benefits Move from Assumed to Elective

Today, most claimants can count on some weekly indemnity (IRB/NEB) being in the background while a tort case crawls forward. Post-reform, no IRB or NEB means no weekly cheque unless the optional coverage was purchased (or a private/disability plan exists). That reality will change the economics of early settlement in tort cases—fewer set-offs and potentially higher exposure for future income loss where the AB “safety net” isn’t there.

FSRA’s own materials confirm the policy intent to be more choice (and therefore more variability) in AB coverage. As a practical matter, that variability will land squarely in the pleadings, discovery, and damages models^[10].

Priority, Optionality and the “Wrong Insurer” Problem

Priority disputes were already messy. Optional benefits raise the stakes. The Court of Appeal’s decision in Continental Casualty Company v. Chubb Insurance Company of Canada, 2022 ONCA 188^[11] held that when a claimant applies to the wrong insurer, they may be stuck without the optional benefits they actually bought, even though they can still pursue the mandatory ones elsewhere. That was a priority battle, but the takeaway for plaintiff lawyers is simple: first application matters.

For years, neither the courts nor the LAT were willing (or able) to fix that via equitable relief. In Yaromich v Heartland Farm Mutual Inc., 2024 CanLII 28835 (ON LAT)^[12], the LAT found that no relief from forfeiture was available in court for SABS claims. In the reconsiderations cases of  Botbyl v Heartland Farm Mutual Inc., 2024 CanLII 28838 (ON LAT)^[13], and also in Yaromich, the LAT said it lacked jurisdiction.

In 2025, the Divisional Court in Botbyl v. Heartland Farm Mutual Inc., 2025 ONSC 3349^[14]held that the LAT does have jurisdiction under s. 129 of the Insurance Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter I.8^[15]to grant relief from forfeiture in SABS disputes. That’s a big doctrinal shift that could soften harsh outcomes where optional benefits are lost because the first OCF-1 went to the “wrong” place—subject to further appellate activity.

The bottom line is that until the statutory priority scheme is rewritten to reflect optionality, expect more disputes about who pays and what benefits are accessible. Defence counsel have been flagging this for a while.

Caregiver/Housekeeping Outside CAT: Practical Effects

Moving caregiver and housekeeping/home-maintenance to an “impairment-based” optional benefit (with CAT-only variants still possible) will pull these supports back into more non-CAT files—but only if purchased. For plaintiffs, that broadens the merits of buying those options at underwriting. For defence, it adds an adjuster’s early task to confirm whether the version purchased was “CAT-only” or “any impairment,” and whether the selected limits match the claim’s trajectory^[16].

Intake Triage After July 1, 2026: What Changes for You

The first 48 hours become more technical:

• Get the paperwork: ask for the OPCF/OEF-47R and the Certificate of Automobile Insurance. That will tell you exactly which optional ABs apply, to whom, and at what limits. If a client hasn’t renewed since pre-reform, confirm they didn’t sign away existing coverages at renewal^[17].
• Control the first filing: if two or more policies are in play (personal vs. commercial, or multiple household policies), slow down and choose the right one for the first OCF-1. Continental Casualty–type traps are now more consequential. Read Continental Casualty^[18]

• Model tort exposure differently: fewer IRB/NEB payments in the record may mean smaller set-offs and larger tort income-loss claims, especially for self-employed clients or precarious workers who didn’t buy optional IRB. (This is a foreseeable market effect flagged in industry commentary. Watch how carriers price and bundle.)^[19]

Mediation and Litigation Strategy

At mediation, expect to spend more time proving coverage architecture before you argue quantum. Defence will press “no optional coverage” to constrain heads of damage and mitigate risk. Plaintiffs will leverage the absence of AB payments to push the tort value. Build a split-screen brief. One side coverage (endorsements, limits, elections), the other side damages with explicit set-off math under the Insurance Act. Where a claimant filed first with the wrong insurer, evaluate relief-from-forfeiture at the LAT post-Botbyl^[20].

Broker and consumer communications

Insurers can bundle optional coverages, but they still have to make the choices transparent and allow customers to decline higher-cost options. Given the number of “small but critical” coverages (visitors’ expenses, personal items, lost education, dependant-care), brokers will need to translate jargon into real-life consequences. Plaintiffs’ firms should be ready with public-facing guidance in June 2026 on how to read a 47R, what “declined” actually means, and why a $3/month add-on today can prevent a $30,000 gap tomorrow^[21].

The take-home for practitioners

Ontario is moving from a default-coverage world to an opt-in world for most accident benefits. Some clients will be fine. Many will not. Your early-file discipline—policy archaeology, priority mapping, and first-notice control—will decide whether a case proceeds with a live weekly indemnity stream and robust AB support, or whether you’re financing recovery solely through tort with no set-offs. Build those steps into your intake scripts now.