Emily Compton

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denying her disputed treatment and assessment plans.

The applicant argued the adjudicator made errors of fact and law, misapprehended evidence, and provided insufficient reasons.

The adjudicator found no significant errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome, noting that the insurer's denials complied with section 38 of the Schedule.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits.

The respondent insurer determined the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied funding for several treatment plans.

The applicant argued that pre-existing back pain and chronic pain removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the pre-existing condition would preclude recovery within the MIG, noting the injuries were predominantly soft-tissue strains.

As the applicant had already exhausted the $3,500 MIG funding limit, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for breach of an employment contract, claiming entitlement to a 1.5% equity stake in the defendant limited partnership.

The parties disputed the nature of the agreement, the entity in which the equity was held, and the value of the shares, relying on conflicting pre-employment emails and formal documents.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence and lack of valuation data created genuine issues of credibility and fact that required a trial.