Nora Refai

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking further disclosure from the defendant, including an unredacted bonus compensation document and details of expenses deducted from the bonus pool, in a wrongful dismissal action concerning unpaid bonuses.

The defendant had redacted information for relevance and commercial sensitivity.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the redacted information was not relevant to the pleaded issues at this stage and that its disclosure would cause significant harm to the defendant due to its sensitive business nature and private employee information.

The court noted that the plaintiff could re-bring the motion if further evidence from discovery established relevance.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rules 30.04(2) and 30.04(5) for the production and inspection of unredacted board minutes referred to in the defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim.

The defendant had produced heavily redacted versions, arguing the redacted portions were irrelevant and commercially sensitive.

The court granted the motion, finding that the entire document was deemed relevant by being referenced in the pleadings, and the defendant failed to meet its onus of demonstrating that the redacted information was irrelevant or that its production to the plaintiffs would cause harm.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to a medical benefit for an orthopedic mattress and cervical pillows, as the evidence supported that her sleep was impacted by accident-related impairments.

The Tribunal denied the balance of a treatment plan for a gym membership and kinesiologist services, finding the partially approved amount reasonable.

The Tribunal also granted a 50% award under Regulation 664, finding the respondent unreasonably withheld approval for a psychological assessment despite possessing medical documentation supporting the claim.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment and a chronic pain assessment.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant proved the reasonableness and necessity of the chiropractic treatment plans and the chronic pain assessment, relying on the applicant's ongoing pain complaints and the recommendations of her treating practitioners and an orthopaedic surgeon.

The Tribunal also addressed procedural issues, excluding a late-filed clinical note but allowing the applicant to file missing treatment plans to ensure a fair adjudication.

The applicant was awarded the disputed benefits with interest, but her claims for a special award and costs were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for chiropractic treatment and the cost of a disability certificate under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's recovery had plateaued and further treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to establish the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, noting the absence of clinical records supporting improvement and the applicant's own reports of plateaued recovery.

The claim for the disability certificate cost was also dismissed as it was not requested by the insurer nor required under the Schedule.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.