Maria Eduarda G Goncalves de Oliveira

The applicant sought accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied three treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from proceeding to a hearing for one treatment plan submitted more than 260 weeks after the accident, as there was insufficient evidence of optional benefits or catastrophic impairment.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the other two treatment plans for chiropractic treatment, as the medical evidence established they were reasonable and necessary to address ongoing pain and functional limitations caused by the accident.

The applicant was also awarded interest on the overdue benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and medical benefits for chiropractic services.

After the applicant's representative was removed, the applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence for the scheduled written hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet the onus of demonstrating entitlement to the claimed benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs), various medical assessments, an award, and interest.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden to prove that he suffered from chronic pain, a psychological impairment, or a neurological condition that would warrant removal from the MIG, noting a lack of objective medical evidence and rejecting a chiropractor's recommendations for psychological and neurological testing.

Consequently, the claims for the proposed assessments were denied.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant was barred from receiving IRBs due to his failure to comply with section 33 of the Schedule by not providing a requested OCF-3.

Claims for an award and interest were dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied as the applicant's conduct did not amount to serious misconduct.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to vary an order setting aside a dismissal of her action and to extend time, which also resulted in the dismissal of her action.

The court awarded costs to the City of Toronto and Toronto Transit Commission, with a 10% reduction due to the plaintiff's financial situation.

However, the court declined to award costs to the third party, Guild Electric Limited, on the basis that the plaintiff did not initiate the third-party claim.

The plaintiff's slip and fall action was dismissed for delay under Rule 48.14.

The court subsequently set aside the dismissal and imposed a mandatory timetable.

The plaintiff breached multiple steps of the timetable, including failing to deliver a sworn affidavit of documents, failing to answer undertakings, and failing to attend mandatory mediation.

The plaintiff moved to vary the set-aside order and extend the time to set the action down for trial.

The court applied the Reid and Jadid factors, finding the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, did not miss the deadlines through inadvertence, and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was dismissed, and the action was dismissed.