TD General Insurance successfully defended a Minor Injury Guideline classification after surveillance footage dismantled a claimant's chronic pain arguments at Ontario's Licence Appeal Tribunal.
In a decision released April 14, 2026, Adjudicator John Mazzilli dismissed the application of Necolan Thomas, who was seeking treatment benefits beyond the $3,500 MIG cap following an automobile accident on August 1, 2023. Thomas had claimed headaches, anxiety, and sprains and strains across her spine, sacroiliac joint, and shoulders - injuries she said were worsened by a prior collision in November 2022. She applied for more than $7,200 in treatment and assessment plans, including chiropractic care, physiotherapy, a chronic pain assessment, and a functional abilities evaluation.
TD held firm, arguing the injuries were minor and belonged squarely within the MIG.
The insurer's strategy leaned on two pillars - medical evidence and surveillance - and both delivered.
On the medical side, TD brought in Dr. Gordon, a physiatrist who reviewed Thomas's full pre- and post-accident file. Dr. Gordon found the injuries minor, with no significant musculoskeletal impairments requiring further facility-based treatment. On the question of the earlier 2022 accident, Dr. Gordon acknowledged it "may delay but should not prevent the claimant from achieving maximal medical recovery if subject to the $3,500.00 limit." TD also secured a psychological report from Dr. Azizli, along with a paper review addendum.
Then came the surveillance. An investigation by Xpera, reported January 21, 2025, captured Thomas going about her daily life - driving, going to work, shopping at Costco and a mall with family, visiting banks, a health clinic, a long-term care home, and a restaurant. She was seen walking, standing, sitting, bending, and carrying items of various sizes, all without any obvious signs of discomfort.
Thomas had argued she met the threshold for chronic pain under the American Medical Association Guides, which require three or more of six characteristics for a diagnosis. Mazzilli was not persuaded. About half of her post-accident doctor visits were for routine checkups or unrelated issues. A clinical note from October 2023 recorded a fall at work that resulted in multiple injuries - muddying the connection to the car accident. Pain clinic records from Dr. Chen did not clearly link her complaints to the collision, instead referencing "Fall, Other injuries or trauma, MVA" without distinction.
Perhaps most telling, the chronic pain report Thomas relied on showed the only medications she was taking at assessment were Metformin and Pantoprazole - used for diabetes and acid reflux, not pain. She had also returned to full-time work as an educational assistant with no restrictions and remained the primary caregiver for her daughter and aging mother.
Procedural hiccups added to the applicant's difficulties. Thomas filed her hearing submissions 19 days past the deadline and later tried to introduce new evidence in reply, including a Canada Life file and a report from Dr. Pilowsky. Mazzilli struck those portions under Licence Appeal Tribunal Rule 9.3, finding they were highly prejudicial to TD, which had no chance to respond. He declined, however, to award TD the $1,000 in costs it sought, accepting the delay was a human administrative mistake rather than bad faith.
The application was dismissed. Thomas remained in the MIG, with no interest, award, or costs ordered against either party.
For insurers and claims teams, the case is a clean illustration of what a well-assembled MIG defence looks like - pairing thorough Section 44 assessments with targeted surveillance to close off chronic pain arguments before they gain traction.
