Najma Maryam Rashid

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for various treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to a treatment plan for physiotherapy services aimed at treating post-concussion syndrome, preferring the evidence of the applicant's assessors who conducted in-person and comprehensive evaluations over the respondent's virtual assessment.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for other physiotherapy, chiropractic, massage, exercise therapy, and prescription eyewear, finding insufficient contemporaneous medical evidence to establish that they were reasonable and necessary.

This decision addresses a motion and cross-motion for production of documents in a personal injury case.

The plaintiff sought production of defence medical expert files from Soma Medical Assessments and further documentation related to the defendants' surveillance evidence.

The defendants sought production of documents from the plaintiff's recently settled disability claim against Great West Life.

The court refused the request for Soma files, deeming it a fishing expedition and subject to litigation privilege.

However, it ordered the production of private investigator information, waiving litigation privilege due to significant privacy intrusion and public policy considerations.

The court also ordered the production of documents from the prior disability action, waiving the deemed undertaking rule given the similarity of issues and the insurer's non-opposition.

Costs were made costs in the cause.

The defendant brought a motion to adjourn the pre-trial conference and trial of a motor vehicle accident action.

The plaintiffs had served several expert reports, including a new economic loss report and a biomechanics report, shortly before the deadline and trial date.

The defendant argued that additional time was required to obtain responding expert reports, conduct further defence medical examinations, and pursue documentary discovery from non-parties.

The court granted the adjournment, finding that the prejudice to the defendant in proceeding to trial without the opportunity to fully defend the claims outweighed the prejudice to the plaintiffs caused by the delay.

The applicant, a self-employed delivery driver, sought statutory accident benefits after a garage door fell on his head while he was picking up parcels at a commercial business.

He had parked his van, turned it off, opened the sliding door, and was walking through the garage door when it fell.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the two-part purpose and causation test.

While the purpose test was met, the Tribunal found the causation test was not satisfied.

The use of the vehicle had ended when the applicant left it to retrieve packages, and the falling garage door was an intervening act independent of the vehicle's use.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, a husband and wife who lived and worked on a farm together, were both injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

Disputes arose with the insurer, and both applicants filed applications for arbitration.

The parties consented to combining the applications.

The arbitrator found that because the applicants' duties with respect to their home and farm were intertwined, there were common issues of fact and law, and combining the claims would be the most just, quickest, and least expensive means to deal with the applications pursuant to Rule 30 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The applications were ordered to be combined.