Michelle Furtado Jorge

The insurer requested a reconsideration of a case conference decision that ordered the production of the adjuster's log notes.

The insurer argued that the log notes were not relevant because the applicant had not claimed a special award.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no error of law or fact.

The Tribunal held that adjuster's log notes are prima facie relevant to an entitlement claim to understand the adjuster's deliberations in refusing benefits, and a claim for a special award is not a prerequisite for their disclosure.

The applicant sought dispute resolution services after the respondent insurer denied several treatment plans for chiropractic care, a chronic pain program, and an attendant care assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant's evidence did not link the treatment plans to specific rehabilitation goals or address the insurer's examination reports.

The application was dismissed and no interest was awarded.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found the applicant was entitled to $1,070 for assistive devices, as they were reasonable and necessary to treat accident-related pain, despite the applicant's concurrent pregnancy.

Claims for a cast and crutches were dismissed as abandoned, and a claim for chiropractic services was dismissed because the applicant had several unexhausted approved treatment plans for similar physical therapies.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payment for the assistive devices.

Following dismissal of a summary judgment motion, the court determined costs as between the moving defendants and other defendants in related actions.

The court held that parties against whom specific relief was sought were entitled to costs even though they filed no responding materials, did not cross-examine, and made no oral submissions, because it was reasonable for them to review the materials and attend to protect their clients' interests.

Applying general costs principles under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1), the court awarded partial indemnity costs in reduced amounts.

Costs were fixed at $4,000 all-inclusive for two responding defendants jointly and $2,000 all-inclusive for another responding defendant.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury claim arising from a zip-line accident, relying on a participant agreement containing a waiver of liability.

The plaintiff argued the waiver was invalid or unenforceable because she did not understand she was signing a release, the waiver language was ambiguous, and the circumstances of signing were misleading.

The court held that the evidentiary record was incomplete regarding the conditions under which the agreement was presented and signed, including potential misrepresentations and the plaintiff’s understanding of the document.

Given the document’s structure, typographical errors, and disputed circumstances, the court concluded that credibility findings and a full evidentiary record were required.

Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate and the enforceability of the waiver must be determined at trial.

The plaintiff sought damages arising from a motor vehicle collision in which liability was admitted.

A jury assessed general damages at $35,000 but awarded nothing for competitive disadvantage or handyman services.

The trial judge was required to determine whether the claim met the statutory threshold under s.267.5 of the Insurance Act for recovery of non‑pecuniary damages.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that his ongoing symptoms were caused by the collision, given significant prior back injuries and more persuasive defence expert evidence.

In any event, the alleged impairments did not amount to a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function.

The action was dismissed for failure to meet the statutory threshold.