A psychological assessment conducted over WhatsApp got zero weight from Ontario's insurance tribunal - and a late denial cost the insurer.
In a decision released on April 10, 2026, the Licence Appeal Tribunal sided largely with Sonnet Insurance Company in a dispute over statutory accident benefits, but not without flagging a procedural misstep that carried potential consequences.
The case, Bilehjani v. Sonnet Insurance Company, 2026 ONLAT 24-010885/AABS, stems from a November 30, 2022, automobile accident. Bahman Bilehjani applied for benefits including removal from the Minor Injury Guideline - which caps medical and rehabilitation coverage at $3,500 - along with a non-earner benefit of $185 per week, chiropractic treatment, and an assistive device. Sonnet denied the claims, and the matter landed before Adjudicator Amar Mohammed.
At the heart of the dispute was whether Bilehjani's injuries qualified as predominantly minor under the Schedule. He argued they did not, pointing to a pre-existing psychological condition dating back to 2016 and what he described as an accident-related psychological condition.
To make his case, Bilehjani leaned heavily on a section 25 psychological assessment. The assessment was conducted entirely over WhatsApp on August 18, 2025. The resulting report was dated the next day - August 19, 2025 - just one day before his written submissions were due. The production deadline had already passed months earlier, on or about April 16, 2025.
The Tribunal was not persuaded. Adjudicator Mohammed gave the report no weight, noting it involved no review of clinical documents and was based entirely on self-reported information through an interview and psychometric tests. The report even acknowledged that its impressions, opinions, and conclusions could change if found to be inaccurate or if new information were provided.
And contradictory information did exist. Records from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, dated November 3, 2022 - just four weeks before the accident - showed no diagnosis, no medication, and no functional impairment. Family doctor records spanning nearly three years after the accident contained no accident-related psychological complaints. By June 2023, the family doctor noted the applicant did not appear to have anxiety or depression. The Tribunal found these longstanding records far more persuasive.
On the physical side, a March 2024 examination showed full range of motion in the lower back and full lower extremity strength. Out of $3,500 available under the MIG, less than $1,200 had been used over nearly three years.
The non-earner benefit claim also fell short. The Tribunal found no evidence comparing pre- and post-accident activities, as required under the test established in Heath v. Economical Mut. Ins. Co., 2009 ONCA 391.
Where Sonnet stumbled was on timing. A treatment plan for $3,622.73 in chiropractic services was submitted on December 19, 2022. The denial did not come until January 10, 2023 - 14 business days later, four days past the 10-business-day window required under the Schedule. The Tribunal applied the statutory penalty, ordering Sonnet to cover any chiropractic services incurred between the 11th and 13th business days after the plan was submitted.
No award for unreasonable withholding of benefits was granted.
