Can You Get Accident Benefits in Ontario Even If the Crash Was Your Fault?

Short answer: yes. In Ontario, you can get accident benefits even if the crash was your fault. Ontario runs a no fault accident benefits system. That means you claim your accident benefits from your own auto insurer no matter who caused the collision. Fault does not decide whether you get these benefits. It decides other things, which we will explain in plain words below.

This is one of the most common worries people have after a car accident. They think the crash was their fault, so they assume they get nothing. They do not report the collision. They do not open a claim. They pay for treatment out of their own pocket, or they skip treatment they need. Weeks or months later they find out they were entitled to help all along, and some of their rights may already be at risk because they waited.

This guide clears up the confusion. It explains what "no fault" really means, which accident benefits an at fault driver can still receive after the big 2026 changes to Ontario auto insurance, what fault actually affects, and the specific situations where an insurer can lawfully deny or cut your benefits. It is written for an injured person with no legal training, so every legal term is explained in everyday language.

The rules come from the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, known as the SABS. That is Ontario Regulation 34/10, as changed by Ontario Regulation 383/24. If you are already hurt and unsure about your coverage, do not guess. Speak with a personal injury lawyer who can read your policy and tell you exactly what you have.

What are accident benefits in Ontario?

Accident benefits are a set of payments and services your own auto insurance company provides after a car accident. People also call them "no fault" benefits, or by the short form "AB". Every Ontario auto insurance policy includes a core group of these benefits by law.

They exist to help you right after a crash, while you are hurt and trying to recover. They can pay for your treatment, for a person to help you with daily tasks if your injuries are serious, and, if you bought the right coverage, for part of your lost income. They are meant to reach you quickly, long before any lawsuit is decided.

Here is the single most important idea in this whole article. Accident benefits come from your own insurer, and they do not depend on who caused the crash. You could be fully at fault, partly at fault, or not at fault at all. For accident benefits, it does not matter. You still apply to your own company, and the core benefits are still available to you.

That is why the label "no fault" exists. It does not mean nobody was to blame. It means blame does not control your access to these benefits.

What does "no fault" really mean, and what does it not mean?

The phrase "no fault" causes more confusion than almost any term in Ontario injury law, so let us slow down and be precise.

"No fault" does not mean the accident was nobody's fault. Someone usually is at fault in a crash. A driver ran a red light, or followed too closely, or looked at a phone. "No fault" does not erase that.

"No fault" does not mean you cannot be blamed. You can still be found at fault. Your insurer can still decide you caused the crash, and that decision can affect your premium.

"No fault" does not mean you cannot be sued, and it does not mean you cannot sue. If you injured someone else, they can still bring a lawsuit against you. If someone else injured you, you can still sue that person, as long as your injury is serious enough to meet the legal test.

So what does "no fault" mean? It means only this. When it comes to your accident benefits, you go to your own insurer, and your own insurer pays those benefits regardless of who was at fault. Fault is taken out of the accident benefits question. It is dealt with on a separate track.

Think of it as two lanes running side by side. In one lane, the accident benefits lane, fault is switched off. You claim from your own company no matter what. In the other lane, the lawsuit lane, fault is switched on and matters a great deal. Many seriously injured people travel in both lanes at once. We will map out both lanes further down.

Can I really get accident benefits if the crash was my fault?

Yes, and it is worth repeating because so many people get this wrong. If you were driving and you caused the crash, you can still apply to your own auto insurer for accident benefits, and you can still receive the core benefits the law requires every policy to include.

Picture a driver who misjudges a turn and hits a pole. No other vehicle is involved. The driver is clearly the only person at fault. That driver can still claim accident benefits from their own insurer. The treatment coverage is there. If the driver bought income replacement coverage, that can be there too. Being one hundred percent at fault does not shut the door on accident benefits.

The same is true if you were partly at fault. Say you and another driver share the blame for a collision at an intersection. Your share of fault does not reduce your accident benefits at all. You still claim the full core benefits from your own insurer.

This design is deliberate. The government built the accident benefits system so that injured people get treatment and support fast, without having to first prove who was to blame. Sorting out fault can take years. Your body cannot wait years for physiotherapy. So the accident benefits lane pays first and asks about fault later, or in truth never asks about fault at all for most benefits.

There are a small number of exceptions where your own insurer can deny or cut certain benefits, and we cover those carefully in a later section. But the general rule is simple and reassuring. At fault drivers in Ontario can and do receive accident benefits.

Which accident benefits can an at fault driver get after the 2026 changes?

To answer this properly, you need to know about a major change that took effect on July 1, 2026. It reshaped which accident benefits come built into an Ontario policy and which ones you now have to buy. We explain the whole reform in depth in our guide to the 2026 accident benefits overhaul. Here is what you need for the fault question.

Before July 1, 2026, a standard Ontario auto policy came packed with a long list of accident benefits by default. As of that date, the law changed. Now only three benefit types are mandatory in every policy. The rest became optional, meaning you get them only if you chose to buy them.

The rule sits at the front of the SABS. It says the benefits in Parts II, IV, V, and VI of the regulation "shall be offered as optional benefits under every contract evidenced by a motor vehicle liability policy entered into or renewed on or after July 1, 2026." Part III, which holds medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care, did not move. Those three stay mandatory.

Here is why that matters for an at fault driver. The three mandatory benefits are available to you regardless of fault, exactly as before. So even if you caused the crash, your own policy still includes:

Medical benefits, which pay for reasonable and necessary treatment you need because of the crash. That covers doctors, physiotherapy, chiropractic care, psychology, occupational therapy, medication, assistive devices, and more.

Rehabilitation benefits, which pay for services that help you rebuild your life and return to work, such as retraining, counselling, and changes to your home or vehicle to fit your needs.

Attendant care benefits, which pay for a person to help you with daily living, like bathing, dressing, and moving around, when your injuries are serious enough.

These three are the foundation of the accident benefits system, and they are there for you whether the crash was your fault or not.

How much do the mandatory benefits pay?

The dollar limits depend on how serious your injury is. There are three levels, and they apply the same way to an at fault driver as to anyone else.

If your injury is a minor injury, the limit is $3,500 for medical and rehabilitation care. A minor injury is defined in the SABS as a sprain, strain, whiplash associated disorder, contusion, abrasion, laceration, or subluxation, plus any clearly related effects. This $3,500 cap comes from a part of the rules called the Minor Injury Guideline. A lot of people are placed in this box at the start, and moving out of it can raise your limit a great deal.

If your injury is not minor and not catastrophic, the combined limit for medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care together is $65,000. That is a shared total for all three, not $65,000 each. Within it, attendant care for a non catastrophic injury cannot go over $3,000 per month.

If your injury is catastrophic, the combined limit for medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care jumps to $1,000,000. Within that, attendant care can reach $6,000 per month. Catastrophic impairment is a special legal category for the most serious injuries, such as certain brain injuries, paralysis, blindness, amputations, and severe overall impairment. We explain how it works and how much it can be worth in our guide to catastrophic impairment benefits.

One point about time. For most non catastrophic injuries, medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care benefits stop 260 weeks after the accident, which is five years. If you were under 18 at the time, they can run longer. For catastrophic injuries, there is no such time limit.

None of these limits change because you were at fault. A catastrophic injury unlocks the $1,000,000 whether you caused the crash or the other driver did. The limit follows the injury, not the blame.

What about income replacement and the other optional benefits if I was at fault?

This is where the 2026 change and the fault question meet.

Income replacement, the non earner benefit, the caregiver benefit, housekeeping and home maintenance, lost educational expenses, visitor expenses, payment for damaged property such as clothing and glasses, the death benefit, and the funeral benefit all became optional as of July 1, 2026. You have them only if they were purchased for your policy.

So the question is not really "was I at fault?" for these benefits. The first question is "did I have this optional coverage at all?" If you bought income replacement coverage, then being at fault does not, by itself, take it away. If you never bought it, there is nothing to take away.

Income replacement is the one most working people care about. If you bought it, it replaces part of your income when you cannot work because of the crash. For many years, the standard version paid 70 percent of your gross weekly income, up to a cap set by the coverage you chose, after a one week wait. Being at fault does not remove income replacement from an at fault driver who purchased it, except in the specific exclusion situations we describe below, such as impaired driving. We go deep on eligibility and amounts in our guide to income replacement benefits.

There is also a limit on who is even allowed to buy the optional benefits, and it matters for fault too. The SABS says the optional benefits apply only to four groups: the named insured, the spouse of the named insured, the dependants of the named insured and the spouse, and the people listed on the policy as drivers of the insured car. We come back to what this means for passengers and pedestrians later on.

So to sum up this section. Being at fault does not, on its own, strip your optional benefits. But you only have optional benefits if they were bought, and only certain people can be covered by them. Fault becomes a live issue for these benefits mainly in the exclusion situations, which we turn to next after we explain what fault actually does affect.

If fault does not affect my accident benefits, what does it affect?

Fault is not irrelevant. It just does its work in other places. Here are the main things fault decides in an Ontario car accident.

You generally cannot sue yourself, so an at fault driver may have no injury lawsuit

The lawsuit lane is where fault does the heavy lifting. A personal injury lawsuit, also called a tort claim, is a claim against the person who caused your injuries. The whole point is to hold an at fault person responsible for the harm they caused you.

If you caused your own crash, there is no other at fault driver to sue for your injuries. You cannot sue yourself. So a driver who was entirely at fault, in a single vehicle crash with no one else involved, usually has no injury lawsuit for their own injuries. Their recovery comes through the accident benefits lane only.

If you were only partly at fault, the picture is different. You may still sue another driver or party who was also to blame. Ontario uses a rule called contributory negligence. It means a court can reduce your compensation by your share of fault. If a court decides you were 25 percent at fault and the other driver was 75 percent at fault, your award for pain and suffering and other losses can be cut by that 25 percent. You still recover, just less. So partial fault does not end your lawsuit, but it does shrink it.

This is a key reason the accident benefits lane matters so much for at fault and partly at fault drivers. Even when the lawsuit lane is closed or reduced because of your own fault, the no fault accident benefits lane is still open. Your treatment coverage does not care whose fault it was.

Your insurance premium can rise

Fault affects your wallet through your premium. If your insurer decides you were at fault, or even partly at fault, that can push your premium up at renewal, and it can stay higher for years. This is separate from your accident benefits. Being found at fault does not cut your medical coverage, but it can make your insurance cost more going forward.

Fault decides your vehicle damage claim

For damage to your vehicle, Ontario uses a system called Direct Compensation Property Damage. Under it, you claim vehicle damage from your own insurer, and the amount you recover depends on your percentage of fault. If you were fully at fault, your own vehicle damage may not be covered unless you carry collision coverage. This is about your car, not your body. Your injury benefits are handled separately and are not reduced this way.

Fault is decided by the Fault Determination Rules

For insurance purposes, your fault percentage is set by a document called the Fault Determination Rules. These are rules your insurer applies to figure out who was at fault, and by how much, using set diagrams of common crash types, such as one car rear ending another. Your insurer assigns each driver a percentage of fault under these rules.

It is important to understand what these rules do and do not decide. The Fault Determination Rules set your fault for insurance purposes, which affects your premium and your vehicle damage claim. They do not decide your accident benefits, because those are no fault. And they do not bind a court. In a lawsuit, a judge or jury decides fault under the ordinary law of negligence, and the court is free to reach a different conclusion than the insurer did. If you were told you were at fault by an insurer, that is not always the last word for a lawsuit. A lawyer can look again. For a common example of how these rules play out, see our guide on who is at fault when you are rear ended.

What is the difference between the accident benefits track and the lawsuit track?

Because fault behaves so differently in each, it helps to see the two tracks side by side. This table lays out how each one works.

The right way to read this table is that the two tracks are built for different jobs. The accident benefits track is the fast, no fault safety net that helps you now. The lawsuit track is the slower, fault based claim that can deliver the larger recovery when someone else caused your harm. Seriously injured people who were not at fault usually pursue both at once. An at fault driver often relies on the accident benefits track alone. To see how a lawsuit builds its numbers, read our guide on how a car accident settlement is calculated.

Are there situations where my own insurer can deny or cut my accident benefits?

Yes. The no fault rule is strong, but it is not absolute. The SABS contains a section of general exclusions. These are specific situations where your own insurer does not have to pay certain benefits, even though the system is no fault. This is the part of the law that catches people by surprise, so it is worth going through carefully.

Two things to keep in mind before we list them. First, these exclusions mainly target the income type and household type benefits, not your core treatment benefits. We explain that important nuance in the next section. Second, several of the exclusions have built in limits and exceptions, so a denial is not always the end of the story. Anyone denied on these grounds should get legal advice before accepting the decision.

Here are the main exclusion situations under the SABS general exclusions.

Being injured while committing a crime

If you were hurt while doing something for which you are convicted of a criminal offence, the insurer does not have to pay the income type and household type benefits. This also reaches a passenger in a car that was being used in connection with an act that leads to a criminal conviction. The key word is convicted. A charge on its own is not enough for a permanent denial, and we explain what happens while charges are pending below.

Driving while impaired by alcohol or drugs

Impaired driving is treated as a criminal offence for these rules. If you were operating a vehicle while your ability was impaired by alcohol, a drug, or a combination, and you are convicted, the insurer can deny the income type and household type benefits. The same applies if you were over the legal limit, or if you refused a lawful demand for a breath sample or to take part in a coordination test or evaluation and you are convicted of that refusal.

Driving without a valid licence

If you were driving without a valid driver's licence at the time of the crash, the insurer is not required to pay the income type and household type benefits. This can catch a driver whose licence was suspended, expired, or of the wrong class for the vehicle.

Driving a vehicle you knew was not insured

If you were driving a vehicle and you knew, or you reasonably should have known, that it was not insured under a motor vehicle liability policy, the insurer can deny those benefits. The test is what you knew or ought to have known. An honest and reasonable belief that the car was insured is treated differently from knowingly driving an uninsured vehicle.

Driving without the owner's consent

If you were driving a vehicle and you knew, or reasonably should have known, that you did not have the owner's consent to drive it, the insurer does not have to pay those benefits. The same can apply to a passenger who knew, or should have known, that the driver did not have the owner's consent.

Being an excluded driver on the policy

Some policies formally exclude a named person from driving the insured car, usually to lower the premium. If you are an excluded driver under the policy and you were driving, the insurer can deny the income type and household type benefits. There is an important exception here. If that same person is a named insured under another motor vehicle liability policy, they may still be able to claim under that other policy. So an excluded driver is not always left with nothing.

Making a material misrepresentation to your insurer

If you made, or knew about, a serious false statement that led the insurer to issue the policy, or you deliberately failed to tell the insurer about an important change in risk, the insurer can deny those benefits. This is about honesty in how the policy was set up.

To make the picture clearer, here is a short summary of who these general exclusions can affect and which benefits are at risk.

Read that right column carefully. The benefits at risk are the income type and household type benefits. That points to the crucial nuance in the next section.

Do the exclusions take away my medical and rehabilitation benefits too?

This is one of the most misunderstood points in the whole area, and getting it right can change a person's recovery.

The general exclusions in the SABS are written to apply to a specific list of benefits. That list is the income replacement benefit, the non earner benefit, and the benefits for lost educational expenses, expenses of visitors, and housekeeping and home maintenance. In plain words, the exclusions target the income type and household type benefits.

Medical benefits, rehabilitation benefits, and attendant care benefits are not on that exclusion list. So as a general rule, even in the difficult situations above, such as an impaired driving conviction or driving without a licence, the mandatory medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care benefits are still available. The system still wants injured people to get treatment, even people who did something wrong.

Let that sink in, because it surprises many people. A driver who is convicted of impaired driving after a crash can still, as a general matter, receive medical and rehabilitation coverage for their injuries through their own accident benefits. What that driver may lose is the income replacement and the household benefits, not the treatment coverage.

We flag this as an area where you should always get advice, because the wording is technical and insurers do not always apply it correctly. If your insurer tries to cut off your treatment coverage because you were at fault or because of an alleged offence, that decision may be wrong, and it can often be challenged. Do not simply accept a cut off. Have a lawyer read the denial against the actual rules.

What if I was impaired but not convicted?

The criminal exclusions turn on a conviction, not just a charge. That distinction protects people who are charged but later cleared.

The SABS has a special rule for this in between period. If you are charged with a criminal offence connected to the crash, such as impaired driving, and the income type or household type benefits would otherwise be payable, the insurer holds those amounts in trust while the charge is unresolved. In plain words, the money is set aside rather than paid out or lost.

Then the outcome depends on how the charge ends. If you are found guilty of the offence or an included offence, the amounts held in trust go back to the insurer. If you are not found guilty, for example because you are acquitted or the charge is withdrawn, the amounts are paid to you. So a charge that does not lead to a conviction should not permanently cost you those benefits.

This is another reason not to give up early. If you were charged after a crash, the criminal case and the benefits question are linked. How the criminal case ends can decide whether you keep the income type benefits. A lawyer can help you protect your position while the charge is dealt with, and can make sure your mandatory treatment benefits keep flowing in the meantime.

What happens to my accident benefits if I refuse to give a statement or a breath sample?

This question comes up a lot, and the two halves have different answers.

Refusing a lawful demand from police for a breath sample, or refusing to take part in a coordination test or an evaluation, is itself treated as a criminal matter under these rules. If you are convicted of that refusal in connection with the accident, it can trigger the same exclusion as impaired driving for the income type and household type benefits. So refusing a police breath demand is not a safe way to avoid consequences. It can create its own problem for your benefits.

Refusing to give a statement to an insurer is different. After a crash you have duties to cooperate with your own insurer and to provide information it reasonably needs to handle your accident benefits claim. That is part of the claims process, not a criminal issue. At the same time, you are not required to hand a recorded statement to the other driver's insurer. If an adjuster from the other side calls, you can decline and speak with a lawyer first. Be careful to keep these straight. Cooperate with your own insurer on your accident benefits, be cautious with the other side, and never refuse a lawful police demand thinking it will protect you.

I was partly at fault. Does that reduce my accident benefits?

No. Your accident benefits are not reduced by your percentage of fault. This is different from a lawsuit, where partial fault can shrink your award.

Say a court or an insurer decides you were 40 percent at fault for a crash. In the lawsuit lane, that could cut a pain and suffering award by 40 percent. In the accident benefits lane, it changes nothing. You still claim the full core benefits from your own insurer, and if you bought optional benefits, those are not scaled down by your share of fault either.

This is the practical beauty of the no fault design for injured people. The moment you need treatment most, you do not have to fight about percentages of blame to get it. Your accident benefits stand on their own. The fight over percentages belongs to the lawsuit and to your premium, not to your medical and rehabilitation coverage.

What if I was rear ended or the other driver was mostly at fault?

If you were not at fault, or the other driver was mostly at fault, you are in the strongest position, because both lanes are open to you. You still claim accident benefits from your own insurer under the no fault rule, and you also have a lawsuit against the at fault driver, provided your injury meets the legal test to sue.

Being rear ended is the classic example. In most rear end collisions, the driver who hit you from behind is found at fault, because drivers are expected to keep enough distance to stop safely. That does not change how your accident benefits work, since those are no fault, but it makes your lawsuit lane clear. You can read how fault is usually assigned in these cases in our guide on who is at fault when you are rear ended.

The takeaway is that fault does not decide whether you get accident benefits. It decides whether, and how fully, you can also pursue the lawsuit lane on top of them.

What if the other driver was uninsured or fled the scene?

There is a version of the fault question that catches people off guard. What if the person who caused your crash had no insurance, or drove off and was never identified? Do you still have coverage?

Yes. Your own policy includes protection for exactly this. If you are hit by an uninsured driver, or by a hit and run driver who cannot be found, you can still access accident benefits through your own insurer under the no fault rule. There is also coverage that can respond to your other losses when the at fault driver has no insurance, and a provincial fund of last resort can apply in some situations. It gets technical, so we walk through it in our guide on being hit by an uninsured driver.

The general lesson holds. Whether the other driver was insured, uninsured, or unknown, your no fault accident benefits come from your own insurer, and they are there to help you recover.

What should I do right after a crash to protect my benefits, even if I think it was my fault?

The most damaging thing an at fault driver can do is assume they get nothing and walk away. Here is how to protect yourself, step by step, even if you believe the crash was your fault.

First, get medical attention and follow through with it. Your treatment records are the backbone of any accident benefits claim. If you skip care because you assume you are not covered, you hurt both your recovery and your claim.

Second, report the crash to your own insurer promptly. The SABS asks you to notify your insurer of your intention to claim within seven days of the accident, or as soon as practicable after that. Reporting is not an admission that ruins you. It opens your claim so your benefits can start.

Third, ask your insurer for the accident benefits application package and return the forms on time. After you get the forms, you generally have 30 days to complete and submit your application. There are strict, short deadlines throughout this process, and missing them can delay or reduce your benefits.

Fourth, do not admit fault at the scene or guess about blame. What feels like your fault in the shock of a crash may not be the full legal picture. Give police the facts, but do not volunteer conclusions about who was to blame. Fault is decided later, using rules and sometimes a court, and it does not control your accident benefits anyway.

Fifth, be careful with the other driver's insurer. You must cooperate with your own insurer, but you are not required to give a recorded statement to the other side. It is reasonable to speak with a lawyer before doing that.

Sixth, keep records. Save your treatment notes, receipts for anything connected to the crash, and any letters from your insurer. If a coverage dispute comes up later, these records can be decisive.

Seventh, get legal advice early, especially if you were charged with anything, if your licence status was in question, or if the insurer hints at an exclusion. A lawyer can protect your benefits from day one and make sure a wrong denial does not go unchallenged. Many personal injury lawyers, including our team, work on a contingency fee, so there are no legal fees unless you recover. We explain how that works in our guide on what a personal injury lawyer costs.

Where do passengers, pedestrians, and cyclists get accident benefits?

So far we have focused on drivers. But many injured people were not driving at all. Where do their benefits come from, and does fault matter for them?

For passengers, pedestrians, and cyclists, the same no fault idea applies. Fault does not control their access to accident benefits. The question is which policy responds, and there is a general order to it.

If you have your own auto policy, or you are covered as a spouse, a dependant, or a listed driver on someone else's auto policy, you usually claim your accident benefits under that policy. This is true even if you were hurt while walking or cycling, not driving. Your own auto insurance follows you as a pedestrian or cyclist.

If you do not have access to any auto policy of your own, the benefits generally come from the insurer of the vehicle involved in the crash. A passenger with no policy of their own typically claims through the insurer of the car they were riding in. A pedestrian or cyclist with no policy of their own typically claims through the insurer of the vehicle that struck them. If no policy can be found at all, a provincial fund of last resort may respond.

Here is where the 2026 change creates a gap worth flagging. The mandatory medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care benefits still reach passengers, pedestrians, and cyclists through the applicable policy, regardless of fault. But the optional benefits, such as income replacement, now apply only to four groups on a policy: the named insured, the spouse, the dependants, and the listed drivers. A passenger who is none of those, and who has no policy of their own, may have the mandatory treatment coverage but not the optional income coverage. A pedestrian or cyclist in the same position can face the same gap.

This is a real change from the past, when some benefits could reach more people involved in a crash. If you were hurt as a passenger, a pedestrian, or a cyclist, it is worth speaking with a car accident lawyer about exactly which policy covers you and what it includes. Fault is not the barrier for you. Finding the right policy and knowing what it holds is the task.

What if my accident benefits are denied?

Sometimes an insurer denies a benefit. It might say your injury is only minor, or that you do not meet a test for a benefit, or it might rely on one of the exclusions we described. A denial is not the final word.

If your insurer denies or cuts an accident benefit, you can dispute the decision at the Licence Appeal Tribunal, often shortened to the LAT. This is the tribunal that decides accident benefits disputes in Ontario. You do not have to accept the insurer's position. You can challenge it, present medical evidence, and have an independent decision maker rule on your entitlement.

This matters a great deal for the fault and exclusion issues in this article. If your insurer denies benefits by pointing to an exclusion, for example claiming you were an excluded driver or that an offence applies, that claim can be tested. The insurer has to justify the exclusion, the wording is narrow, and the facts may not support it. Insurers also sometimes try to cut treatment benefits that the exclusions do not actually reach. All of that can be argued.

We walk through the dispute process, the deadlines, and how to prepare in our guide on what to do when accident benefits are denied. The short version is that a denial is a decision you can fight, and many denials are overturned or settled once challenged.

Does being at fault change my deadlines to claim?

No. Being at fault does not shorten or lengthen your deadlines. The same time limits apply whether you caused the crash or not, and they are strict, so they deserve attention.

On the accident benefits side, you should notify your insurer within seven days, or as soon as practicable, and return your application within 30 days of getting the forms. Various benefits and treatment plans have their own timelines after that.

On the lawsuit side, if you do have a claim against another party, you generally have two years to start it in Ontario. If a government road authority is involved, there can be a much shorter notice period. Because these timelines are firm, missing one can end a claim regardless of how strong it is. We map out the time limits in our guide on how long you have to sue after a car accident.

The lesson is simple. Do not let a belief that the crash was your fault lull you into missing a deadline. Report and file on time, and let a lawyer sort out whether the lawsuit lane is open too.

If I am also suing, how does fault affect the money I keep?

Many injured people are in both lanes at once, so it helps to see how fault touches the lawsuit money, since it does not touch the accident benefits money.

In a lawsuit for pain and suffering after a car crash, two things can reduce what you keep, and both live in the lawsuit lane, not the accident benefits lane.

The first is contributory negligence, which we met earlier. If you were partly at fault, your award can be reduced by your share. A 30 percent share of fault can mean a 30 percent reduction in the pain and suffering portion and other losses.

The second is the statutory deductible. Even when your injury is serious enough to sue and you win a pain and suffering award, Ontario law subtracts a fixed deductible from that award. For 2026, the pain and suffering deductible is $47,913.01. There is relief for badly injured people, though. If your pain and suffering award reaches $159,708.71 in 2026, the deductible does not apply at all. We break this down with examples in our guide to the pain and suffering deductible.

Neither the deductible nor contributory negligence touches your accident benefits. They only affect the lawsuit award. So even a partly at fault plaintiff, facing a reduction and a deductible in the lawsuit lane, still has the full no fault accident benefits lane behind them. That is exactly why the two track system exists.

Why does Ontario keep accident benefits no fault?

It is worth understanding the reason behind the design, because it explains why an at fault driver is covered at all.

The no fault accident benefits system is built on a simple policy choice. When someone is hurt in a crash, society wants them to get treatment and support quickly, so they can recover and return to their life and work. Making that help depend on first proving fault would slow everything down. Fault fights can take years. An injured person needs physiotherapy in weeks, not years.

So Ontario separated the two questions. It put treatment and immediate support in a no fault lane that pays fast, from your own insurer, no matter who caused the crash. It left blame and full compensation in the lawsuit lane, where courts can take the time to sort out fault properly.

This is why even an at fault driver receives core accident benefits. The system decided that keeping people in treatment is worth more than punishing fault by withholding medical care. The exclusions we described are narrow carve outs for serious wrongdoing, such as impaired driving, and even they mostly spare the treatment benefits. The default, for almost everyone, is coverage.

Common myths about fault and accident benefits

A few false beliefs cause real harm after crashes. Here they are, corrected.

The myth that at fault drivers get nothing. False. At fault drivers get core accident benefits from their own insurer, and optional benefits too if they bought them, apart from the narrow exclusions.

The myth that reporting the crash admits fault and ruins your claim. False. Reporting opens your benefits. Fault is decided separately, and you need to report to start your accident benefits.

The myth that partial fault cuts your benefits. False for accident benefits. Your share of fault does not reduce them. Partial fault only reduces a lawsuit award.

The myth that an impaired driving charge ends all your benefits. False as stated. A charge alone does not permanently end benefits. Only a conviction triggers the exclusion, and even then the mandatory treatment benefits generally remain.

The myth that if the other driver was uninsured you are on your own. False. Your own policy has protection for uninsured and hit and run drivers.

The myth that the insurer's fault finding decides your lawsuit. False. A court decides fault in a lawsuit under negligence law and is not bound by the insurer's fault percentage.

Clearing away these myths is often the difference between a person getting the help they are owed and a person walking away from it.

An illustrative scenario

Consider a common situation, told as an illustration only. A driver is heading home in the evening and, while reaching for a phone, drifts across the centre line and sideswipes a parked truck. No other person is hurt. The driver injures a shoulder and a knee and cannot work for three months. The driver is clearly at fault for the crash.

At first the driver assumes there is no coverage, since the crash was so plainly their fault. That assumption is wrong. Because Ontario accident benefits are no fault, the driver applies to their own insurer. The mandatory medical and rehabilitation benefits cover the physiotherapy and treatment for the shoulder and knee. Because the driver had purchased income replacement coverage before the crash, and because no exclusion applies, the driver also receives income replacement while off work. There is no other driver to sue, because the driver caused the crash alone, so the lawsuit lane is closed. But the accident benefits lane carries the driver through recovery.

Now change one fact. Suppose the driver had been drinking and is later convicted of impaired driving. The mandatory medical and rehabilitation benefits generally remain, because the general exclusions do not target treatment benefits. But the income replacement benefit can be denied under the impaired driving exclusion. While the charge was pending, that income benefit would have been held in trust, then returned to the insurer once the conviction was entered. This shows how fault and wrongdoing affect different benefits differently, and why early legal advice matters so much when a charge is in the picture.

These illustrations are simplified. Real cases turn on their exact facts, the policy wording, and how a charge is resolved. They are meant to show the shape of the rules, not to predict any particular outcome.

How VC Lawyers can help

Fault makes people give up on benefits they are entitled to. That is the real danger. An injured driver who believes the crash was their fault often assumes the door is closed, when in truth the no fault accident benefits lane is wide open, and even most exclusion situations leave the treatment benefits intact.

Our team handles accident benefits claims and injury lawsuits across Ontario. We read the policy, confirm what coverage exists, deal with your own insurer, meet the deadlines, and challenge wrong denials at the Licence Appeal Tribunal. If another party shares the blame, we build the lawsuit against them as well, so your recovery is as complete as the law allows. When an insurer points to an exclusion, we test whether it truly applies, because the wording is narrow and insurers do not always get it right. We work on a contingency fee basis, so there are no legal fees unless we win for you.

If you or a family member was hurt in a crash, even one you think was your fault, do not assume you are on your own. Contact VC Lawyers for a free consultation, or reach our personal injury team through our main injury page. We will tell you exactly what coverage you have and what to do next.

This article is general information about Ontario law, not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. For advice about your situation, speak with a lawyer.