A psychologist endorsed the report. The tribunal wasn't sure she was in the room.
A signed psychological report failed to convince an Ontario tribunal after questions surfaced about whether the psychologist actually conducted the assessment.
In a decision released April 14, 2026, Licence Appeal Tribunal Adjudicator John Mazzilli dismissed a claim by Ilaha Alakbarova to be removed from Ontario's Minor Injury Guideline following a May 14, 2023 automobile accident. Alakbarova had sought statutory accident benefits from Allstate Insurance Company of Canada beyond the $3,500.00 MIG cap, which both sides agreed had already been exhausted.
At the heart of the dispute was a question familiar to insurers and claims professionals across the province: when a psychological report carries one name but was largely prepared by another, how much weight should it receive?
Alakbarova argued she suffered from an accident-related psychological injury and should be entitled to funding beyond the MIG for physiotherapy, psychological services, and assessments proposed by HM Medical Network and Healthspot Assessments Inc. Her case leaned heavily on a March 7, 2024 psychological report prepared by Viktoria Tolmatshov, a psychotherapist under supervised practice, and reviewed and endorsed by Dr. Julie Gosselin, a psychologist. The report concluded that Alakbarova met a diagnosis of major depressive disorder, moderate single episode, and specific phobia related to vehicular travel.
Mazzilli was not persuaded. The report stated that its opinions were "based upon the history obtained, the mental status examination performed on the client," and that the assessment - which included a diagnostic clinical interview, a feedback interview, and psychometric tests - had been "reviewed and endorsed by Dr. Julie Gosselin, C. Psych." For the adjudicator, that language raised more questions than it answered - specifically, whether Dr. Gosselin had any direct involvement in the online clinical interview, feedback interview, or psychometric testing.
That was not the only concern. The adjudicator noted the report lacked objective validity testing to confirm the accuracy of Alakbarova's self-reported symptoms, relying instead entirely on subjective descriptions and subjective psychometric testing. There was also a contradiction the adjudicator could not overlook: the report acknowledged Alakbarova had returned to her pre-accident employment a week after the accident, while simultaneously concluding she suffered a substantial inability to carry on the essential tasks of that same job.
The contemporaneous medical record did not strengthen the applicant's case. Following the accident, Alakbarova attended Mackenzie Hospital, where a CT of the head revealed no abnormalities. She was diagnosed with back strain and discharged the same day. Her family physician, Dr. Bondarev, saw her three days later, and no accident-related injuries were discussed. Dr. Bondarev's clinical notes and records contained no accident-related psychological complaints from the applicant.
Under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, medical and rehabilitation benefits are capped at $3,500.00 for injuries that fall within the MIG - defined as sprains, strains, whiplash associated disorders, contusions, abrasions, lacerations, or subluxations and their clinically associated sequelae. Claimants seeking funding beyond that cap carry the burden of proving their injuries warrant removal from those limits.
Mazzilli ordered that Alakbarova remains within the MIG, declined to assess whether the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, and dismissed the application. No benefits or interest were found owing.
