In-person beats virtual: an Ontario tribunal decision spells out what insurers need from psychological assessments to defend MIG classifications.
In Kaur v. Definity Insurance Company, released April 13, 2026, adjudicator Jeff Chatterton held the applicant to the Minor Injury Guideline - and in doing so, laid out reasoning that should interest every insurer managing accident benefits claims in Ontario.
The case arose from a July 2, 2023, automobile accident. Kirandeep Kaur sought benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and argued that a psychological condition should take her outside the MIG's $3,500 treatment cap. Definity Insurance Company disagreed. The dispute landed before the Licence Appeal Tribunal.
At the heart of the case were two competing psychological assessments. Kaur's side put forward a report by Psychological Associate Sabrina Simmons, conducted under the supervision of Psychologist Dr. Valery Kleiman. Definity relied on a section 44 assessment by Psychologist Dr. Janet Clewes. The two reached different conclusions - and the adjudicator's reasons for preferring one over the other are where the practical takeaways live.
Format mattered. Dr. Clewes conducted her assessment in person. Ms. Simmons conducted hers by video call. The adjudicator found that in-person evaluations provide "a more thorough picture of the patient's condition" through body language and direct observation in a controlled setting. In a post-pandemic landscape where virtual assessments became routine across the accident benefits system, that stated preference carries weight.
Testing methodology also made a difference. The applicant's assessor administered more tests, but the adjudicator found most of them were subjective and self-administered - the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale and the Accident Fear Questionnaire among them. The tests chosen by Dr. Clewes - the Pain Patient Profile and the Trauma Symptom Inventory - included internal validity scores to determine the validity of the responses. The message for insurers and their assessment vendors is plain: it is not about how many tests get run, but whether those tests hold up under scrutiny.
Then there was the question of who actually conducted the assessment. Ms. Simmons, a psychological associate, performed the testing, while Dr. Kleiman was listed as the supervising psychologist. The tribunal found it unclear what role that supervision actually played. The adjudicator preferred Definity's report because Dr. Clewes, a psychologist, conducted the assessment directly. For insurers selecting assessors, the credentials and hands-on involvement of the lead clinician are clearly on the tribunal's radar.
Family physician records did not change the outcome. Dr. Aakash Modi noted in a single visit that Kaur was "feeling depressed and anxious," but without a diagnosis, a referral, or a pattern of ongoing complaints, the adjudicator found that alone was not enough to justify removal from the MIG.
The application was dismissed. Kaur was held to the MIG and the $3,500 treatment cap. No treatment plans were reviewed, and no interest was awarded.
