LAT Clarifies Housing Benefit Calculations for Injured Claimants with Multiple Properties

A recent decision from the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) offers important clarity, and a meaningful win, for accident victims who own more than one property. Oatley Vigmond was proud to act for the applicant in this case.

In an issue that has not previously been considered by the Tribunal, the question was asked whether an insurer could reduce an injured person’s housing benefit entitlement by factoring in rental income from all properties they owned, including a secondary or “vacation” property. The Tribunal’s answer: no.

The Core Dispute

Following a serious motor vehicle accident, the applicant was unable to return to her primary residence in Thunder Bay and instead required a larger, accessible rental unit in Toronto to accommodate her injuries and ongoing treatment.

During her recovery, seeing as her properties would be sitting unused for the foreseeable future, the applicant began to rent out her Thunder Bay home as well as a vacation condo in Toronto she used occasionally.

The applicant’s insurer agreed that she required the accessible unit and accepted that it would pay her a housing benefit for her rent differential. However, her insurer argued that all rental income (i.e. from both her properties) should be used to offset the cost of her new accessible accommodation. On that approach, the applicant would receive little or no housing benefit.

The Decision

The Tribunal began its analysis by reaffirming that the Staturoty Accident Benefits Schedule is remedial, consumer-protection legislation. As such, it must be interpreted in a way that reduces economic hardship and supports an injured person’s recovery and reintegration, not in a way that narrowly limits their entitlement.

From there, the Tribunal considered the insurer’s central argument, one commonly advanced, that failing to deduct all available sources of income would result in a “windfall” to the insured. In other words, the insurer argued that because the applicant was generating income from multiple properties, failure to account for all the income in her housing benefit payment would overcompensate her.

However, we argued that this “windfall” framing cuts both ways. Including rental income from a secondary, vacation property would in fact create a windfall for the insurer, allowing it to benefit from an asset that has no connection to the applicant’s pre-accident primary living situation. The Tribunal accepted this reasoning and found that the only rental income to be considered is her primary residence, and not her vacation condo.

This decision is grounded in the proper purpose of the housing benefit: to restore the insured person to their pre-accident living situation. By focusing on the applicant’s primary residence, her home in Thunder Bay, the Tribunal kept the analysis aligned with that purpose and avoided an overly broad financial assessment of unrelated assets.

This reasoning recognizes the applicant’s real-world losses. Due to her injuries, she lost the ability to use her vacation property. Renting it out was a reasonable step to mitigate that loss, not a profit-making strategy or a basis to reduce her entitlement. The Tribunal’s approach properly accounts for this reality and avoids penalizing the applicant for taking practical steps to manage the consequences of her injuries.

Practical Takeaways

For accident victims and their representatives, this decision offers clear guidance.

If an insured owned multiple properties pre-accident, only their primary residence is relevant to housing benefit calculations. Rental income from secondary properties should not reduce entitlement. Insurers cannot rely on unrelated assets to avoid paying otherwise valid rehabilitation benefits.

This ruling is a significant and welcome development for injured individuals with more complex financial situations. It confirms that the accident benefits system is not designed to strip claimants of the broader value of their assets, but rather to restore stability after life-altering injuries. For those navigating catastrophic or long-term impairments, that distinction can make a substantial financial difference.