Joshua Jaisimha David

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued he should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had pre-existing conditions, they had largely resolved prior to the accident and did not prevent maximal recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of chronic pain.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claim for further physiotherapy, along with claims for an award and interest, were dismissed.

The respondent brought an urgent motion to set aside an order for an undefended trial and to prevent the applicant from moving to Cambridge with the children.

The applicant brought a cross-motion seeking permission to move.

The court found that the applicant had not provided proper notice of the relocation under the new provisions of the Divorce Act, and there was insufficient evidence to determine if the move was in the children's best interests.

The court dismissed the request to move for now, deferring the issue to the upcoming trial.

The court also refused to set aside the undefended trial order but allowed the respondent to participate if he files a complete Form 15B Answer.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that one treatment plan was statute-barred due to the applicant's failure to attend a section 44 insurer's examination.

The Tribunal found the applicant was statute-barred from claiming the $1,053.84 treatment plan because he failed to attend the properly scheduled examination without reasonable explanation.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held the applicant failed to prove he suffered from chronic pain warranting removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for medical benefits and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought child and spousal support, and interim disbursements for legal fees and a business valuator, while the respondent cross-motioned for access and Office of the Children's Lawyer involvement.

The court imputed an annual income of $150,000 to the respondent for support purposes, finding a pattern of non-disclosure, lavish lifestyle, and complex financial arrangements.

The court ordered retroactive child and spousal support, and interim disbursements for the applicant.

The respondent's motions for access and OCL involvement were dismissed due to serious concerns about his mental health, violent history, and lack of insight.