Laura Meschino

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

The respondent denied the treatment plan on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that a pre-existing left knee injury and a lip laceration took her out of the MIG, and that the respondent failed to provide sufficient reasons for denial within the required timelines under section 38 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent complied with section 38, the injuries were predominantly minor, and the applicant failed to establish that her pre-existing condition would prevent maximal recovery.

The treatment plan was deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed.

The defendants were successful in obtaining summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's action on the basis that a settlement had been agreed to.

The defendants sought costs approaching $20,000.

The court found the requested amount disproportionate to the modest amount in issue and the straightforward nature of the motion.

The court awarded the defendants costs fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity scale, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action, asserting that the parties had executed a binding agreement and release concerning renovation work.

The plaintiff argued that he was coerced into signing the agreement due to economic duress, thus rendering the settlement non-binding.

The court applied the summary judgment test from *Hryniak v. Mauldin* and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

It determined that the plaintiff's financial needs did not constitute illegitimate pressure for economic duress and that the plaintiff had affirmed the settlement by retaining the payment.

Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the action and upholding the settlement agreement.