A self-represented driver met the test for income replacement benefits after a rear-end collision - then collected nothing once an offset wiped out her claim.
The Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal sided with The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company on every issue in Msheiel v. The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company, 2026 CanLII 56663 (ON LAT), released June 9, 2026.
Marwa Msheiel was driving when her vehicle was struck from behind at a suburban traffic light on June 18, 2024. She sought income replacement benefits of $400 per week, attendant care benefits of $2,879.55 per month, and funding for several treatment and assessment plans under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule. The Dominion denied the benefits, and she applied to the Tribunal.
Vice-Chair Brian Norris found Msheiel met the disability test for IRBs during an initial period after the accident, but ruled she was entitled to no payment. The reason was the benefits she collected elsewhere. She received employment insurance sickness benefits over the same period, and under section 7(3)a of the Schedule, an insurer may deduct 70% of gross employment income from IRBs payable. Norris noted Msheiel received a weekly EI benefit of $646, fully offsetting the $400 weekly maximum she claimed. He cited Aviva Insurance Company of Canada v. Spence, 2022 ONSC 4988 (CanLII), as binding authority.
Surveillance proved decisive elsewhere. Video and photos from June 2025 captured Msheiel walking without aids, grocery shopping, loading cases of drinks into the trunk of her vehicle, and accompanying one of her children's classes at a local zoo. She was never observed using a cane. Norris found that contradicted her reported reliance on a cane, knee brace, and arm sling.
On attendant care, Norris gave no weight to a May 1, 2025 report by N. Khramtsova, RN, recommending $2,879.55 in monthly benefits. He found it rested on inaccurate assumptions - including that Msheiel was entirely self-sufficient before the accident and used a cane afterward - that conflicted with her medical records. He also found she had not shown the benefits were incurred under section 3(7)e, pointing to an unsupported claim that she paid over $5,000 to a service provider without any receipt.
Norris rejected the treatment and assessment plans as well. A $3,414.16 chiropractic plan listed post-concussion syndrome as a primary concern, yet no concussion was documented in the medical evidence. He found that a chronic pain assessment and an orthopaedic assessment would duplicate care already provided by an OHIP-funded pain specialist, Dr. Pirzada, who had administered nerve block injections in January 2025.
With no benefits payable, Norris found no interest owing under section 51 of the Schedule and no special award under section 10 of Regulation 664.
For insurers and claims professionals, the decision shows how a collateral-benefit offset and surveillance evidence can each defeat an accident-benefits claim. An applicant can clear the disability threshold and still recover nothing where EI sickness benefits absorb the amount payable.
