Introduction

A jacket torn when the airbag deployed. A helmet cracked on impact. A pair of boots ruined at the scene. Most people do not think of these as accident benefits, but under Ontario's Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, they are. Your insurer must pay the reasonable cost of repairing or replacing clothing you were wearing when the accident happened.

The catch is that this benefit is won on receipts, not on a story. Three recent Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions show exactly what separates a paid claim from a denied one. Clothing damage is one of those quiet benefits many claimants never learn about, the same way many people miss meal delivery as an accident benefit. Here is how to make sure yours is the kind that gets paid.

What Section 24 Covers

Section 24 is one of the smaller accident benefits, and it is easy to overlook while you are focused on treatment plans and income replacement. In plain terms, it covers three things:

1. Clothing you were wearing at the time of the accident. 2. Clothing that was damaged or lost because of the accident. 3. The reasonable cost of repairing or replacing that clothing.

The claim goes on an OCF-6 expense claim form. It is not part of your treatment plan, and it is not billed through HCAI. It is a separate claim with its own evidence rules, which is why the paperwork matters more than the story.

There are also two quiet limits to keep in mind. The item must have been on your body when the crash happened, not sitting in the trunk. And the insurer only owes the reasonable cost of repair or replacement, so an expensive replacement for a well-worn item may be trimmed back to what a comparable item would cost.

The Two Things You Have to Prove

The Tribunal's test comes from a 2023 decision called [[F] v Chubb](https://canlii.ca/t/k0q2j). To win, you have to prove two things:

1. You owned the clothing at the time of the accident. 2. You replaced or repaired it because the accident damaged it.

These are two separate proofs, and both can be requested. A receipt for the original purchase is not enough on its own. A receipt for the replacement is not enough on its own. You need both ends of the story: what you had before the crash, and what you bought to replace it after.

Ownership proof is anything that shows you had the item before the crash: the original receipt, a bank or credit card statement, or a photo of you wearing it. Replacement proof is the same idea, after the crash: a new receipt, itemized and in your name. The two do not substitute for each other, which is the mistake that sank most of the claims below.

The onus stays on the applicant the whole way. When the file is silent or vague, the Tribunal treats that as failure. It does not matter how believable the story is.

Is a Helmet "Clothing"?

Yes. In [[L] v Co-operators](https://canlii.ca/t/k2thb), decided in 2024, a motorcyclist claimed the replacement cost of a helmet cracked in his crash. The insurer argued a helmet is safety equipment, not clothing. The Tribunal disagreed, using the ordinary meaning of the word: things you wear to cover or protect your body. A helmet worn at the time of the accident is clothing under section 24.

The practical takeaway is that section 24 is broader than a jacket or a pair of jeans. Protective gear counts.

The Receipts That Win, and the Ones That Lose

Three decisions map the evidence line with unusual clarity.

What won: In [L], the motorcyclist attached a dated receipt from Barrie Harley-Davidson for the replacement helmet. It was specific, dated, and tied to the item. The Tribunal awarded $312.95, plus interest.

What lost: In [F], the claimant submitted vague photographs from unknown websites with different prices for each item. The insurer had asked for receipts, credit card statements, bank statements, store purchase confirmation, and photographs of the applicant wearing the items. None of that was produced. Website screenshots do not prove you owned the item or replaced it, and the claim was denied.

What lost again: In [[C] v TD](https://canlii.ca/t/kdm70), decided in 2025, the claimant submitted receipts from Holt Renfrew for a damaged overcoat and a pair of sneakers. Neither receipt had a customer name, only an illegible ID number, and there was no other evidence of ownership or replacement. On top of that, the OCF-6 itself was not among the applicant's own filed materials, which left the Tribunal nothing to work from. Denied.

The pattern is blunt. A dated store receipt wins. A screenshot or a no-name receipt loses. This is the same documentation discipline the Tribunal expects across every claim, from retroactive invoices to expense forms.

A Real Scenario

Imagine a driver rear-ended on the way home from work. Her winter coat is cut when the airbag deploys, and her boots are ruined. Three weeks later she files a claim with a short note saying the items were destroyed.

That claim will likely fail. It asks the insurer to pay on trust, and section 24 does not run on trust.

Here is what she should do instead. In the days after the crash, photograph the damaged coat and boots, and date the photos. When she buys replacements, keep the receipts. If the original purchase records still exist, pull those too. Ownership plus replacement, in writing. That is the difference between the [F] outcome and the [L] outcome, and it costs nothing but a few minutes of record keeping.

How to File the Claim

1. Photograph the damage right away. Date the photos if you can, and keep them with the item. 2. Keep the original receipt if it survives. A bank or credit card statement showing the purchase works too. 3. Keep the replacement receipt. It should be dated, itemized, and in your name. 4. File an OCF-6 expense claim form (OPTIONAL), and attach a short explanation of each item with the receipts.

What to Do If the Claim Is Denied

A denial on a clothing claim usually arrives as a letter from your insurer explaining why the expense was not paid. Read it. The reason is almost always the same one that appeared in [F] and [C]: no proof of ownership, no proof of replacement, or both.

If you still have the evidence, send it. A short reply attaching the two receipts and the dated photos is often enough to turn a denial around before it ever reaches a hearing. Adjusters reopen files when the missing proof appears.

If the insurer holds its position, the next step is the Licence Appeal Tribunal. You do not need a lawyer to start a dispute, but the decisions above show the bar is real: the Tribunal weighs documents, not explanations. Build the file before you go, not after. This is general information, not legal advice.

Conclusion

Clothing damaged in a car accident is a real, payable benefit, but it is decided on paper. The Tribunal does not usually doubt that the crash happened. It asks whether you can prove you owned the item and replaced it because of the damage.

Keep the two receipts: the original and the replacement. That pair, more than anything else, is what turns a story about a ruined coat into a paid claim. For the wider picture of how the Tribunal has been ruling on accident benefit claims, see our Nutritional Assessments Approved in court. This is general information, not legal or medical advice.