Financial Services Commission of Ontario

Commission des services financiers de l’Ontario

Neutral Citation: 2007 ONFSCDRS 70

FSCO A05-001257

BETWEEN:

MILROY VARATHARAJAH

Applicant

and

TTC INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Insurer

REASONS FOR DECISION

Before:

Elizabeth Nastasi

Heard:

January 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19, 2007, at the offices of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario in Toronto.

Appearances:

Dimple Verma for Mr. Varatharajah

Karen McGuire for TTC Insurance Company Limited

Issues:

The Applicant, Milroy Varatharajah, was injured while attempting to board a TTC bus on June 6, 2004. He applied for and received some statutory accident benefits for medical and housekeeping benefits from TTC Insurance Company Limited ("TTC"), payable under the Schedule.¹ TTC denied any additional claims beyond September 14, 2004 and Mr. Varatharajah disputed the denial. The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and Mr. Varatharajah applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario under the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended.

The issues in this hearing are:

1. Is Mr. Varatharajah entitled to receive a medical benefit in the outstanding amount of $13,968.00 for physiotherapy, chiropractic therapy and massage therapy provided by Focus Rehabilitation Group claimed pursuant to section 14 of the Schedule for the period June 6, 2004 to January 15, 2007?

2. Is Mr. Varatharajah entitled to payments for housekeeping and home maintenance services, pursuant to section 22 of the Schedule, in the amount of $100.00 per week for services provided by Mr. Sivasambu Kalaiyarasan from September 14, 2004 to June 6, 2006?

3. Is TTC liable to pay a special award pursuant to subsection 282(10) of the Insurance Act because it unreasonably withheld or delayed payments to Mr. Varatharajah?

4. Is TTC liable to pay Mr. Varatharajah's expenses in respect of the arbitration under subsection 282(11) of the Insurance Act?

5. Is Mr. Varatharajah liable to pay TTC's expenses in respect of the arbitration under subsection 282(11) of the Insurance Act?

6. Is Mr. Varatharajah entitled to interest for the overdue payment of benefits pursuant to subsection 46(2) of the Schedule?

Result:

1. Mr. Varatharajah is not entitled to receive a medical benefit pursuant to section 14 of the Schedule.

2. Mr. Varatharajah is not entitled to payments for housekeeping and home maintenance services, pursuant to section 22 of the Schedule.

3. TTC is not liable to pay a special award pursuant to subsection 282(10) of the Insurance Act.

4. Mr. Varatharajah is liable to pay TTC's expenses in respect of the arbitration under subsection 282(11) of the Insurance Act.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

Background

Mr. Varatharajah came to Canada in 1990 from Sri Lanka. He took a variety of courses at Humber College and Ryerson University in the area of graphic arts and film making. At the time of the accident in June of 2004, he was in the process of trying to sponsor his wife and child to join him in Canada and was working as a printing press operator.

Mr. Varatharajah testified that at approximately 1:00 a.m. on June 6, 2004 he was attempting to board a TTC bus. The bus was very crowded and there were passengers standing right up to the front doors. As Mr. Varatharajah was attempting to board the bus, the driver closed the doors on his right arm and right leg. After closing the doors, the driver got up to check on a disturbance at the back of the bus. The driver returned to his seat and started to drive away with Mr. Varatharajah's arm and leg still caught in the door. Mr. Varatharajah testified that the bus moved for approximately 2 У metres with him stuck in the door before the shouts of other passengers caused the driver to stop. When the doors opened, Mr. Varatharajah fell back onto the ground. He did not hit his head.

Other than for a few weeks immediately following the accident, Mr. Varatharajah received treatment from Focus Rehabilitation Group ("Focus") until approximately March 2006.² The Applicant submits that what initially presented as a soft tissue injury has developed into chronic pain syndrome.

Mr. Varatharajah is also claiming that for the 4 months following the accident he required and was receiving 4 У to 6 У hours of housekeeping assistance per day. As his condition improved, this was reduced to 2 hours per day on or about October 4, 2004 and remained at this rate consistently for the remaining invoices. This assistance was provided by his roommate, Mr. Sivasambu Kalaiyarasan.

TTC paid medical and housekeeping benefits until approximately September 14, 2004. I did not find that additional medical or housekeeping benefits were reasonable or necessary beyond the dates already paid by TTC for the reasons that follow.

Credibility

Mr. Varatharajah submitted that TTC has attempted to colour the proceedings by events that were occurring before and after the accident that were not necessarily relevant to the issues before me. Although TTC did not argue that its refusal of accident benefits was based on any material misrepresentation on the part of Mr. Varatharajah, it did lead a great deal of evidence with respect to Mr. Varatharajah's credibility both in general and in respect of his specific accident benefit claims.

There were inconsistencies in the evidence given by Mr. Varatharajah which I found to be relevant to both the specific issues before me and to his credibility in general. The issues that raised concerns with respect to Mr. Varatharajah's credibility are as follows:

(i) Mr. Varatharajah's Employment Status

At the time of the accident, Mr. Varatharajah was working as a printing press operator for WOW Printing. There was some dispute as to whether Mr. Varatharajah was a "trainee" or an "employee." Regardless of the term used, the evidence led by both parties established that Mr. Varatharajah was working up to 30 hours or more each week and was earning between $800.00 and $1,300.00 per month. Mr. Varatharajah worked at WOW Printing until May 2005 when he began other employment.

Mr. Varatharajah told TTC, his treating health practitioners and both the Insurer and DAC assessors that he was not employed either before or after the accident. This was contradicted by his testimony and that of his former employer, Mr. Chapley. There was no explanation provided for this inconsistency other than he did not consider himself to be an "employee" but instead was a "trainee." I did not accept this explanation as plausible as he worked regular hours for more than a 1½ year period.

Mr. Chapley, the Applicant's employer at the time of the accident, testified that a few months before this hearing Mr. Varatharajah approached him at his place of work and asked him to "make up a story" during the evidence he gave at the hearing. Mr. Chapley testified in a clear and forthright manner. He described Mr. Varatharajah as a relatively good employee whom he had had no significant conflict with in the past. Mr. Varatharajah presented no evidence of a motive as to why Mr. Chapley testified in this manner and, as such, I considered him to be a disinterested witness.

(ii) Job Offer from Image Printing Plus 2

Although Mr. Varatharajah was not making a claim for income replacement benefits, there was a great deal of evidence led around the issue of a job offer that he said he received two days before the accident occurred. I did not find the evidence on this issue to be credible and there were several inconsistencies that arose during cross-examination of the Applicant.

The letter Mr. Varatharajah submitted as proof of an "offer of employment" was signed by M. Raj, owner of Image Printing Plus 2. It turned out that M. Raj was the "nickname" of a Mr. Rajeswaran Thiagarajah who was a former business partner of Mr. Varatharajah. Mr. Varatharajah testified that he was not aware of the fact that it was his former business partner who signed the letter or owned the business when he applied for or obtained the offer of employment. He testified that he had only dealt with a woman named Posan who offered him the job and later provided him with the letter. Image Printing Plus 2 is a small copy and print shop with only two employees, Posan and her husband Mr. Thiagarajah.

Mr. Thiagarajah testified at the hearing. He also said that he was not aware the letter he signed with respect to a job offer was for Mr. Varatharajah, his former business partner. Both Mr. Varatharajah and Mr. Thiagarajah were somewhat evasive and vague when questioned about the details surrounding their former business together. Mr. Thiagarajah testified that they did not hire anyone to replace Mr. Varatharajah as they could not find anyone who was qualified.

Counsel for Mr. Varatharajah submitted that I should not consider the evidence related to the job offer as the case before me does not involve a claim for income replacement benefits. However, it did form part of the materials submitted by both parties. In all of the documentation following the accident it is clear that Mr. Varatharajah was planning to make a claim for income replacement benefits based on a job offer from Image Printing Plus 2. The issue of income replacement benefits had been initially applied for and listed on the Application for Mediation as a claim for $400.00 per week.³ The issue was listed in the Report of Mediator as an "Issue Not in Dispute."⁴

In a sworn statement Mr. Varatharajah signed in his lawyer's office on February 11, 2005, he stated that he had in fact started a new job when the accident happened. The Declaration stated that the accident occurred on his second day of work and, as a result, he was unable to fulfill his work duties and lost the job.⁵ During cross-examination he provided no explanation for why he would have sworn this affidavit.

Although not determinative of the entire case, I considered the misstatements and inconsistencies set out above in assessing the case in its entirety and the reliability in general of Mr. Varatharajah. These concerns are compounded by the doubts raised by Dr. Bushuk and Dr. Tibbles in their examinations of Mr. Varatharajah. In making findings of credibility, I have considered all of the evidence presented and I have given the relevant evidence such weight as I deem appropriate on an issue-by-issue basis.

Medical Benefits

On the day of the accident, Mr. Varatharajah was taken to the hospital by ambulance. The ambulance report noted that his chief complaint was "low back pain."⁶ Mr. Varatharajah did not receive treatment at the hospital because he submitted he was in so much pain he could not stand the long wait. He was picked up by a friend, went home and took some Tylenol.

The Applicant's Evidence

(i) Testimony of the Applicant

The evidence with respect to the benefit Mr. Varatharajah derived as a result of the treatment was somewhat inconsistent. He testified that the treatment he received from Focus "helped a little" but that after 2 days he would feel pain again. During cross-examination counsel directed him to the fact that on October 12, 2004 he had advised the DAC Assessor, Dr. Tibbles, that treatment was providing relief for only the day of the treatment and that on March 16, 2005 his family doctor had noted "no response to physiotherapy."

(ii) Dr. Fasihy's Clinical Notes and Records

Although Mr. Varatharajah claimed that he went to see his family doctor, Dr. Fasihy, the day after the accident, the clinical notes and records and disability certificate indicate that his first visit occurred on June 10, 2004 - 4 days after the accident. He subsequently went to see Dr. Fasihy on June 15, 2004 and June 29, 2004 and then ongoing on a fairly regular basis. During these visits, Mr. Varatharajah's chief complaints were neck and low back pain.⁷

It appears from her notes that Dr. Fasihy first conducted a more detailed examination of Mr. Varatharajah's back and neck during the June 29, 2004 visit. She completed a Disability Certificate on the same date. Dr. Fasihy described the injury as "cervical spine pain, lumbar pain, right D5 intermittent numbness (5^th finger)."⁸ Although Mr. Varatharajah had advised Dr. Fasihy that he was not working at the time, she indicated that he would be able to complete the essential tasks of his employment within 1-4 weeks post-accident. The Disability Certificate also notes that Mr. Varatharajah's pain "... interferes with his ability to do housekeeping and ADL's" and that he would require more than 12 weeks of housekeeping assistance. Dr. Fasihy also recommended massage and physiotherapy and noted that "I suspect his pain will become a chronic problem."

Dr. Fasihy was not available to testify at the hearing as she had moved out of province. A review of her clinical notes and records led me to conclude that she was recording Mr. Varatharajah's subjective complaints and not conducting any type of objective testing. I found it relevant that Dr. Fasihy had been advised by the Applicant that he was not working during this period. He was in fact working the entire time that she was treating him and as such Dr. Fasihy had not been provided with an accurate picture of what Mr. Varatharajah's abilities were at that time. I did not find Dr. Fasihy's conclusion that Mr. Varatharajah's pain "... will become a chronic problem" persuasive. This statement was made a little over 3 weeks post accident and was based largely on Mr. Varatharajah's subjective complaints. Based on the testimony of all of the medical experts, 3 weeks post accident is too early to be making a diagnosis of chronic pain. For these reasons, I gave this evidence limited weight.

(iii) Testimony of Dr. Huang and Clinical Notes and Records of Focus Rehabilitation Group

Shortly after the accident Mr. Varatharajah began some rehabilitation treatment at APEX Injury Clinic which was located in the same building as his family doctor. He testified that he attended for approximately 2-3 weeks. On or about July 21, 2004, approximately 6½ weeks post accident, Mr. Varatharajah began attending at Focus. He was assessed by Dr. Jeff Sole, a chiropractor. Dr. Sole's diagnosis was cervical, thoracic and lumbar strain/sprain with referral to right hand and right calf. Under the section Diagnostic Impression, "chronic traumatic strain/sprain" was indicated.⁹ Mr. Varatharajah testified he was initially attending 3 times per week at Focus and received passive treatment such as massage, ultrasound, TENS and chiropractic with some minimal active range of motion exercises. In a follow-up examination on October 4, 2004, the diagnosis was similar except that there was a reference to the right shoulder.¹⁰ Mr. Varatharajah continued his treatment at Focus for the next 20 months until March 2006.

Dr. Huang, a chiropractor at Focus, first saw Mr. Varatharajah on February 8, 2005 [sic].¹¹Dr. Huang's evidence was that he found both subjective and objective evidence of an impairment. However, he gave limited details of what type of objective testing was done to determine the extent of Mr. Varatharajah's impairment in addition to his subjective complaints. He indicated that the Focus Evaluation Forms did not have a section for objective testing results. Dr. Huang testified that he supported the previous diagnoses of Dr. Sole and Dr. Lianos that Mr. Varatharajah's condition was now chronic.¹²

In general, I did not find Dr. Huang's testimony very helpful. He did not appear to have any additional clinical notes other than the evaluation forms that he used. The evaluation forms do not document the results of the specific treatment Mr. Varatharajah received and the benefit that treatment may have had to him. The only notes that did exist with respect to the actual treatment provided are the clinic log notes. These notes allow for only basic tracking of the various types of treatment that a patient receives on each visit, but there is no room for any clinician feedback. Dr. Huang testified that the log notes were likely completed by the clinic acupuncturist as he would be the only person with time to fill them out. Mr. Varatharajah was not receiving any acupuncture treatment from Focus.

On the issue of chronic pain, it was Dr. Sole at Focus who first used the term "chronic" in his July 21, 2004 evaluation. This was only 6 weeks after the accident. Dr. Huang testified that an injury becomes chronic or that "chronic pain syndrome" sets in anywhere after approximately 3 months. Dr. Huang provided very little additional evidence on the nature of chronic pain syndrome and why Mr. Varatharajah's case should be considered in this context.

Insurer's Medical Evidence

All three doctors who testified in this case, including Dr. Huang for the Applicant, generally agreed that accurate reporting by a patient is important in both assessing the degree of disability and in making recommendations for treatment. This is particularly true in the case of soft tissue injuries as it is difficult to objectively test for symptoms and thus doctors must rely heavily on the patient's subjective complaints to make determinations. Without an applicant's cooperation, full disclosure and honesty, an accurate assessment is not possible.

There was a DAC assessment on October 1, 2004¹³ and an Insurer Examination on March 21, 2006¹⁴ which specifically looked at the question of whether the treatment being proposed by Focus was reasonable and necessary. Both assessments were conducted by Dr. A. Tibbles, chiropractor. There was also an Orthopaedic Insurer's Examination conducted on September 14, 2004 by Dr. M. Bushuk, orthopaedic surgeon.¹⁵

Both Dr. Tibbles and Dr. Bushuk came to the conclusion that there were no objective findings of an impairment to support Mr. Varatharajah's subjective complaints of neck and low back pain or the numbness in his right hand. Neither felt that there was any evidence to support a finding of chronic pain syndrome in this case.

Both Dr. Tibbles and Dr. Bushuk noted serious concerns about the effort that Mr. Varatharajah put forward during the assessments and the accuracy of the symptoms he was reporting. They both raised concerns with Mr. Varatharajah's credibility. Both doctors were struck by the inconsistencies of Mr. Varatharajah's complaints with their findings. As such, neither found evidence of any impairment. Neither disputed that at some point he may have suffered a soft tissue injury but it was likely short lived and had resolved completely by the time they conducted their assessments in September and October 2004. Dr. Tibbles concluded that no ongoing treatment was reasonable and necessary. For the reasons set out below I accept their positions over the testimony of Dr. Huang from Focus and the evidence of Mr. Varatharajah.

Dr. Bushuk gave extensive and detailed evidence with respect to the kind of testing that was done during the examination and the purpose of each test. He found significant inconsistencies and contradictory findings, symptom magnification and evidence of self-limiting behaviour. Mr. Varatharajah's response to various tests raised concerns with the legitimacy of his presentation. His subjective complaints and perceived level of disability were not supported by any objective findings and were not in keeping with the "normal physiologic healing process." It was Dr. Bushuk's opinion that there was a "significant volition component" to Mr. Varatharajah's presentation and that he was deliberately trying to mislead the examiner.

In addition to the physiological inconsistencies, Mr. Varatharajah told Dr. Bushuk that he had not worked in 2 years but that he had a job offer at a printing company to start the Monday after the accident. Dr. Bushuk concluded that there was no musculoskeletal impairment that would prevent him from resuming a job as a printer but noted that Mr. Varatharajah had told him the job was no longer available. This is inconsistent with Mr. Varatharajah's own evidence that he was in fact working as a printing press operator at the time of the accident and at the time of the assessment. Dr. Bushuk did not specifically address Mr. Varatharajah's ability to do housekeeping.

Dr. Tibbles concluded that the September 13, 2004 treatment plan submitted by Focus, recommending a combination of active and passive treatment, was not reasonable and necessary. His conclusion was based on the fact that there were no objective findings of strain/sprain injuries and given the amount of treatment that had already been provided. Dr. Tibbles concluded that Mr. Varatharajah may have had a sprain/strain injury at one point which has a typical recovery between 4 to 6 weeks.

Dr. Tibbles, like Dr. Bushuk, also gave very detailed evidence with respect to the kind of testing he performed during his examination and the purpose of each test. He also found significant inconsistencies and results that had no anatomical explanation.

Dr. Tibbles assessed Mr. Varatharajah again on March 21, 2006 - almost 18 months after his initial assessment. His evidence was that Mr. Varatharajah's complaints at this time were essentially the same as the previous assessment. Once again he observed inconsistencies in Mr. Varatharajah's reactions and test results. He came to the same conclusion that Mr. Varatharajah did not demonstrate any objective evidence of strain/sprain or dysfunction.

Mr. Varatharajah challenged Dr. Bushuk and Dr. Tibbles' conclusions on the basis that they both ignored his subjective complaints and did not explore other explanations for his ongoing pain such as chronic pain syndrome or a psychological condition. Both Dr. Tibbles and Dr. Bushuk gave evidence with respect to the possibility that Mr. Varatharajah's condition had progressed to chronic pain syndrome by this point. Neither felt that this was a case of chronic pain syndrome in light of the timing of the examinations which were only 3-4 months post accident and the reliability testing that was conducted. Although they acknowledged that a time line is somewhat arbitrary, generally chronic pain syndrome has a threshold of 6 months post accident. They also went on to describe other features that were not present in the case of Mr. Varatharajah. Of key concern were the inconsistencies that emerged from the assessments. Dr. Bushuk noted that a true chronic pain patient is very consistent.

Counsel for Mr. Varatharajah referred me to case law that supported the principle that pain relief in and of itself can be a legitimate medical and rehabilitative goal, and therefore reasonable and necessary, even if it does not promote recovery.¹⁶ I agree with the principles set out by these cases, however, I do not consider them relevant in this case. Mr. Varatharajah has provided limited evidence as to the subjective benefits of his treatment. Further, I accept the findings and evidence of Dr. Bushuk and Dr. Tibbles that Mr. Varatharajah did not have the necessary elements of a chronic pain case.

Mr. Varatharajah’s claim for medical benefits is, therefore, denied.

Housekeeping and home maintenance services

Pursuant to section 22 of the Schedule, the insurer shall pay for "reasonable and necessary additional expenses incurred by or on behalf of an insured person as a result of an accident for housekeeping and home maintenance services if, as a result of the accident, the insured person sustains an impairment that results in a substantial inability to perform the housekeeping and home maintenance services that he or she normally performed before the accident."

Mr. Varatharajah lived in two different apartments following the accident. The service provider remained the same for both locations - his roommate Mr. Kalaiyarasan. At the time of the accident in June 2004, Mr. Varatharajah and his roommate were living on the main and upper floors of a 3-bedroom, two storey home. This living area consisted of 3 bedrooms, a living room, kitchen and 1 bathroom. The floors had carpet with hardwood in the kitchen and hallway.

Both Mr. Varatharajah and Mr. Kalaiyarasan testified that prior to the accident they shared the cleaning responsibilities equally. They testified that they washed and vacuumed all the floors, dusted the house, cleaned the bathroom and the kitchen on a daily basis. They testified that the reason they had to clean the entire home every day was that their landlord was "very strict" and was trying to sell the house so it had to be clean each day. They also did laundry once or twice per week. The laundromat was approximately a 15-minute walk away. Each did their own grocery shopping and cooking prior to the accident. In September 2004, Mr. Varatharajah and Mr. Kalaiyarasan moved to a 2-bedroom apartment in a high-rise building. Their apartment was on the 21^st floor with laundry facilities in the basement.

Following the accident, both testified that Mr. Kalaiyarasan did all of the cleaning and laundry tasks including the cooking and shopping for both men. Mr. Kalaiyarasan testified that he had to prepare two separate meals because they liked different levels of spiciness in their food. During this initial part of the claim, Mr. Kalaiyarasan's evidence was that he performed all of Mr. Varatharajah's household tasks including meal preparation for a total of 4-6 hours per day. He testified that at that time he was working full time at a bakery on the overnight shift. He said that he would return home at approximately 9:00 a.m. and sleep for a few hours and then proceed to perform all of the cleaning, shopping and cooking duties.

I did not find Mr. Kalaiyarasan to be a credible witness and at times he was evasive about answering. His evidence seemed exaggerated and implausible. He did not clarify at what point during the day he did his own cleaning, but based on his testimony he would have been sleeping only 3-4 hours and then spending nearly all his waking hours cleaning and cooking for Mr. Varatharajah before returning to his own full-time job at night.

I found the testimony of both Mr. Varatharajah and Mr. Kalaiyarasan exaggerated and at times not credible with respect to the issue of housekeeping. It may have been that Mr. Varatharajah required some amount of housekeeping in the initial weeks post accident, however, I found that the overall flavour of the evidence to be so tainted that it was not possible to determine how much, if any, assistance was required during the period being claimed. Further, I accepted the medical evidence of both Dr. Bushuk and Dr. Tibbles that Mr. Varatharajah no longer suffered any impairment as of September/October 2004.

There was an In-Home Assessment conducted by Century Assessment on December 19, 2004 which recommended that Mr. Varatharajah receive 8 hours of housekeeping assistance per week. In light of the testimony of the Applicant and the service provider and the findings of Dr. Bushuk and Dr. Tibbles I gave this evidence little weight.

Consequently, Mr. Varatharajah is not entitled to any additional amounts for the cost of housekeeping and home maintenance expenses.

Special Award

An order for a special award under subsection 282(10) of the Insurance Act is based on a finding of entitlement. Since I made no such finding, this is not an appropriate case for a consideration of a special award.

EXPENSES:

The parties did not argue the issue of expenses before me. The parties should attempt to resolve their claims for the expenses of this arbitration proceeding by reviewing Rules 75 to 79 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code. If the parties are unable to resolve the issue of expenses, either party may request within 30 days of receipt of this decision, an appointment before me to determine expenses.

April 12, 2007

Elizabeth Nastasi Arbitrator

Date

Financial Services Commission of Ontario

Commission des services financiers de l’Ontario

Neutral Citation: 2007 ONFSCDRS 70

FSCO A05-001257

BETWEEN:

MILROY VARATHARAJAH

Applicant

and

TTC INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Insurer

ARBITRATION ORDER

Under section 282 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended, it is ordered that:

I. Mr. Varatharajah is not entitled to receive a medical benefit for the period from June 6, 2004 to January 15, 2007 pursuant to section 14 of the Schedule.

II. Mr. Varatharajah is not entitled to payments for housekeeping and home maintenance services, pursuant to section 22 of the Schedule.

III. If the parties cannot resolve the issue of hearing expenses in light of this decision, they will follow the procedure stipulated by the Dispute Resolution Practice Code. If necessary, I will issue a separate decision on hearing expenses.

April 12, 2007

Elizabeth Nastasi Arbitrator

Date

Footnotes

1. 1The Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule — Accidents on or after November 1, 1996, Ontario Regulation 403/96, as amended.
2. 2The last Focus log note is dated March 14, 2006. Exhibit #4, Tab 5, page 263.
3. 3Exhibit #2, Tab 7.
4. 4Exhibit #2, Tab 9.
5. 5Exhibit#3, Tab 1, page19.
6. 6Exhibit #2, Tab 1.
7. 7Exhibit #4, Tab 5, page 8.
8. 8Exhibit #4, Tab 5, pages 47-50.
9. 9Exhibit #8, Tab 1, pages 3-13.
10. 10Exhibit #8, Tab 1, page 19.
11. 11Exhibit #8, Tab 1, page 30 -Note the log note incorrectly states the date as February 8, 2004
12. 12Exhibit #8, Tab 1, page 30.
13. 13Exhibit #2, Tab 13.
14. 14Exhibit #2, Tab 14.
15. 15Exhibit #2, Tab 12.
16. 16Driver and Traders General Insurance Company (FSCOA01-000841, January 8, 2003); Amoa-Williams and Allstate Co. of Canada (FSCO A97-001864, June 5, 2000); Mann and Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada (FSCO A02-000462, June 29, 2005).