In TD General Insurance Company v. Eliaszadeh, 2026 CanLII 50998 (ON LAT), Ontario's Licence Appeal Tribunal has ordered a claimant to repay TD General $7,710.19 in income replacement benefits after finding wilful misrepresentation about post-accident income.
Released May 27, 2026, Adjudicator Melanie Malach ruled that TD General was entitled to a lump-sum repayment under s. 52 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, plus interest. The decision turned on the insurer's ability to claw back IRBs paid years earlier and the tribunal's rejection of a limitation defence.
Hadi Eliaszadeh was involved in an automobile accident on September 19, 2019. TD General obtained an IRB Calculation Report from PricewaterhouseCoopers dated January 7, 2020, indicating an IRB quantum of $165.05 per week pending review of any post-accident income. By letter dated January 10, 2020, TD paid arrears and began weekly IRB payments. Eliaszadeh received a total of $7,710.19 for the period of September 27, 2019 to August 18, 2020.
A s. 25 accounting report from S&T Accounting dated December 11, 2020 then claimed the respondent's IRB base should be $400 per week. On December 21, 2020, TD advised that an overpayment was owing because the respondent had failed to disclose all the businesses he owned or worked for and had not disclosed all post-accident income earned. A PwC Supplementary Report dated February 26, 2021 found the respondent may have post-accident income from companies he had failed to report, including payments to his holding company from a third party.
The Corporate Tax Return of Canada Home Realty for the year ended August 31, 2021 showed total revenue of $76,260.00 and net income of $30,749.00 - figures Malach found in direct contradiction with an S&T Accounting letter dated March 31, 2021 and the respondent's Examination Under Oath testimony on December 7, 2021 that Canada Home had ceased to operate and had no revenue after the accident. Surveillance evidence in the Investigation Report of xpera dated October 18, 2022 confirmed with Homelife/Future Realty that the respondent continued to work from home.
Eliaszadeh argued the application was statute-barred and that his cognitive, psychological and physical impairments prevented document production. He sought repayment through a reasonable deduction from ongoing or future benefits, citing s. 52(2)(b) of the Schedule. Malach rejected both arguments. She held the two-year limitation in s. 56 applies to an insurer's refusal to pay a benefit, not to an insurer's request for overpayment. On the repayment mechanism, the adjudicator found "the wording of s. 52(2)(b) is clearly permissive and not mandatory," and accepted that IRB entitlement had been suspended since December 22, 2020 due to the respondent's failure to comply with s. 33 requests, making the deduction option unavailable.
Malach also gave no weight to the impairment argument, noting production requests dated back to 2021 and that no medical evidence of the claimed impairments had been filed. Interest was awarded under s. 52(5) of the Schedule.
