Tribunal File Number: 17-000162/AABS
Case Name: 17-000162 v Pembridge Insurance Company
In the matter of an Application pursuant to subsection 280(2) of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c I.8., in relation to statutory accident benefits.
Between:
Applicant
Applicant
and
Pembridge Insurance Company
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR: Gemma Harmison
Written Submissions By:
For the Applicant: Rajiv Kapoor, Paralegal
For the Respondent: Ravinder Chahal, Counsel
Written Hearing: June 6, 2017
OVERVIEW:
1[The applicant] (the “applicant”) was involved in a motor vehicle accident on February 15, 2015. He sought benefits from the respondent pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule - Effective September 1, 2010 (“Schedule”).
2The applicant submitted an application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal - Automobile Accident Benefits Service (“Tribunal”), following the denial of certain benefits for which he had applied. The applicant disputes the respondent’s denial of seven (7) Treatment and Assessment Plans (“OCF-18s”) for treatment services and for various costs of examinations. The seven disputed OCF-18s had been submitted to the respondent at various points in 2015 and 2016. The respondent denied each of them on the grounds that they were not reasonable and necessary.
3The applicant takes the position that each of the disputed OCF-18s is reasonable and necessary for treatment and assessment of his accident-related injuries. The applicant asserts that medical evidence from his family physician, the treating clinic, and his own assessors support his position. The applicant contends that all of the proposed services relate directly to his accident-related impairments; identify goals that include pain reduction, increased strength and range of motion, and a return to activities of normal living; and are necessary to assess and/or identify the extent of the applicant’s impairments in order to make recommendations as to further treatment.
4The respondent stands by its denials and maintains its position that the disputed treatment plans are not reasonable and necessary. The respondent relies on the reports of its Insurer Examination (IE) assessors as well as other evidence to support its position. The respondent asserts that the records of the applicant’s family doctor raise concerns about causation. As well, the respondent submits that the applicant stopped attending physical and psychological treatment that had been approved by the respondent and that the applicant did not incur all of the approved funding that remained accessible to him as further evidence that the disputed OCF-18s are not reasonable and necessary.
ISSUES TO BE DECIDED:
5I have identified the issues to be determined from the Tribunal’s order dated April 12, 20171 and the parties submissions2 as follows:
i. Is the applicant entitled to receive a medical benefit in the amount of $1,096.41 for assistive devices, denied by the respondent on October 6, 2015?
ii. Is the applicant entitled to receive a medical benefit in the amount of $1,842.81 for chiropractic services, denied by the respondent on August 24, 2016?
iii. Is the applicant entitled to payment for the cost of examination in the amount of $2,000.00 for a social emotional assessment, denied by the respondent on December 14, 2015?
iv. Is the applicant entitled to payment for the cost of examination in the amount of $2,104.00 for an orthopaedic assessment, denied by the respondent on June 27, 2016?
v. Is the applicant entitled to payment for the cost of examination in the amount of $2,152.00 for a functional ability assessment, denied by the respondent on December 24, 2015?
vi. Is the applicant entitled to payment for the cost of examination in the amount of $1,970.00 for a neurological assessment, denied by the respondent on August 24, 2016?
vii. Is the applicant entitled to payment for the cost of examination in the amount of $2,000.00 for a chronic pain assessment, denied by the respondent on September 16, 2016?
viii. Is the applicant entitled to receive interest on any overdue payment of benefits?
ix. Is either party entitled to costs of the proceeding?
RESULT:
6For reasons set out below, I find that:
i. The applicant is not entitled to medical benefits for the OCF-18s relating to assistive devices and chiropractic services;
ii. The applicant is not entitled to payment for any of the five OCF-18s relating to costs of examinations;
iii. Since no benefits are ordered payable, the applicant is not entitled to interest;
iv. Neither party is entitled to costs.
BACKGROUND:
7The applicant was the seat-belted driver and sole occupant of a 2002 Honda Civic. He was driving on an expressway when his vehicle was impacted on the passenger side by another vehicle that was changing lanes. The impact of that collision pushed the applicant’s vehicle into the other lane, which in turn resulted in a secondary collision with a different vehicle impacting the driver’s side of the applicant’s vehicle. The airbags in the applicant’s vehicle did not deploy. The applicant was able to exit his vehicle independently. Emergency personnel attended the scene. The applicant declined to be transported to hospital and the tow truck operator drove him home.
8The applicant attended a walk-in clinic on or about the next day where he reportedly was prescribed anti-inflammatory medication (Naproxen) and was recommended to attend physiotherapy3.
9Dr. Luela Louis, Chiropractor at Toronto Medical Centre (“TMC”), completed a Disability Certificate (OCF-3) dated February 18, 20154 (three days after the accident). Dr. Louis listed the applicant’s accident-related physical injuries and sequelae to include whiplash associated disorder (WAD2); soft tissue sprain/strains of the neck, back, and shoulder; pain in the lower limb; concussion without loss of consciousness; and post-traumatic headaches. Dr. Louis also listed radiculopathy in the neck and lumbar spine regions, as well as psychological issues. Dr. Louis indicated an anticipated period of disability of 9-12 weeks. Elsewhere on the OCF-3, Dr. Louis indicated that the applicant’s past medical history was significant for a pelvic bone fracture as a result of a prior motor vehicle accident (“MVA”) in 1993; injuries resulting from another MVA in 1998 including a head injury, right foot fracture, lumbar spine fracture, and torn ligaments in the neck and back; and a work related injury in 2014 resulting in a pinched nerve in the back.
10Clinical notes and records (“CNRs”) of the applicant’s family physician, Dr. Louvaris5, indicate that the applicant was seen on February 19, 2015, four days after the accident. The entry indicates that the applicant did not suffer a loss of consciousness at the time of the accident. On physical examination, Dr. Louvaris noted that there was no bruising or swelling of the applicant’s left arm, and no bruising, contusion or swelling to the applicant’s head. Dr. Louvaris did note that the applicant had some tenderness and pain in his lumbar spine and neck. Dr. Louvaris’ impression was recorded as “soft tissue injury”. Dr. Louvaris did not recommend x-rays at that time, and indicated a plan for treatment as including anti-inflammatory and pain medication and physiotherapy. An entry in the CNRs on March 10, 2015 (just over 3 weeks post-accident) indicated that the applicant reported the same musculoskeletal symptoms, but no headaches. An entry dated April 7, 2015 (just over seven weeks post-accident) indicates that Dr. Louvaris referred the applicant for x-rays of the neck and lumbar spine, as well as a bilateral shoulder ultrasound. The ultrasound of the shoulders yielded entirely normal results. X-rays of the neck and lumbar spine showed degenerative disc disease at C5-C6, L4-L5 and L5-S1, but no evidence of fractures. An entry in the CNRs dated June 23, 2015 indicates that the applicant had stopped taking all medications since mid-April 2015.
11The applicant attended treatment sessions at TMC. According to the attendance records of TMC6 the applicant attended a total of 23 treatment sessions between February 2015 and September 2016 when he stopped attending. An Account Summary from TMC as of February 20177 confirms that the applicant still had some funding accessible to him, which had been approved by the respondent in February 2016, when he stopped attending sessions in September 2016.
ANALYSIS:
12As this is a written hearing, the only evidence before me is in the form of documentary evidence and I have considered all of the documents submitted.
13I note here that the respondent had raised in its submissions a particular issue which, in its view, tainted the credibility of the applicant’s “evidence as a whole”. I was not persuaded by the respondent’s submissions in that respect. I found it to be of no real significance insofar as my determination of the issue of whether the disputed treatment plans are reasonable and necessary, which can be adequately assessed and determined by other factors.
14The onus rests with the applicant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that each of the disputed OCF-18s is reasonable and necessary. For reasons that follow, I find that he has failed to meet that onus.
OCF-18 for assistive devices
15This OCF-18 was prepared by Dr. Sabaa Aziz, Chiropractor at TMC, and is dated September 24, 20158 (approximately 7 months post-accident). Dr. Aziz recommended various assistive devices for the applicant including such things as a long-handled toenail clipper, long-handled reacher, long-handled shoe horn; long-handled bath scrubber; and light-weight mop (Swiffer Wetjet). Among the goals identified by Dr. Aziz in respect of these assistive devices were: increase range of motion, return to normal activities of daily living, and to restore pre-accident level of function.
16This OCF-18 was referred for an IE in-home assessment which was conducted by Ms. Sharon Mills, Occupational Therapist (OT). Her report dated November 11, 20159 concluded that none of the assistive devices was reasonable and necessary.
17I find that the applicant has failed to prove that the assistive devices are reasonable and necessary for the following reasons.
18Dr. Aziz simply listed the assistive devices being recommended but in my view did not adequately articulate or provide sufficient particulars as why the applicant requires each device or why he is unable to perform certain self-care tasks without them.
19In contrast the IE in-home assessor, Ms. Mills, addressed each of the recommended assistive devices individually and provided reasons why she found each of them not reasonable and necessary.
20I prefer and place more weight on the observations and assessment report of Ms. Mills, as I find it to be more detailed, fulsome and particularized when addressing each of the recommended assistive devices.
21In reaching my conclusion that the assistive devices are not reasonable and necessary, I further make note of the following, all of which, notably, was documented in reports in the months before the OCF-18 for assistive devices prepared by Dr. Aziz dated September 24, 2015:
During a psychological IE assessment on June 10, 201510, when outlining the applicant’s self-reported daily activities, it was noted that the applicant “attends to his self-care activities independently”;
The report of an attendant care needs assessment by the applicant’s own OT assessor Ms. Kotelenets, on June 19, 201511, while recommending assistive devices, noted that the applicant was independent post-accident in regards to dressing and undressing;
The report of a functional abilities IE assessment on April 13, 201512, indicated that “Prior to the accident, [the applicant] said he was not responsible for housekeeping tasks”.
22I find that the applicant has failed to meet his onus and that the Treatment Plan for assistive devices is neither reasonable nor necessary.
OCF-18 for chiropractic services
23This OCF-18 was submitted by Dr. Luela Louis of TMC, and is dated August 10, 201613 (approximately 18 months post-accident). Dr. Louis recommended, among other services, 10 sessions of physical rehabilitation (noting that such treatment could include physical conditioning, active therapy, exercises, and heat/ice); as well as 10 sessions of therapy (noting that such treatment could include manipulation, manual therapy, massage therapy, and acupuncture). According to Dr. Louis, the applicant had “made some improvements over the course of the previous treatment plan” but he continued to advise of pain in the head, neck, back, and shoulder.
24As referenced above, the attendance records of TMC indicate the applicant attended a total of 23 treatment sessions over a 19 month period between February 2015 and September 2016. For seven of the months during that timeframe, the applicant attended at a frequency of only once per month. Other months during that time frame he did not attend any sessions at all.
25The respondent notes that it had approved further physical treatments for the applicant in February 2016 but the applicant stopped attending in September 2016 and that, as per the Account Summary from TMC as of February 2017, the applicant still had not incurred the full amount that had been approved. The respondent “questions why another treatment plan was submitted on August 10, 2016” when the previously approved plan was not fully incurred.
26In my view, a key factor in determining whether further facility-based treatment is reasonable and necessary is whether the facility-based treatment the applicant had already received yielded documented improvement.
27While Dr. Louis indicated that the applicant had made some improvements over the course of the previous treatment plan, I note that no detailed particulars or specifics were provided regarding any such improvements. No CNRs from the clinic were submitted as evidence for the hearing, which would have identified exactly what treatment modalities were being employed and whether any appreciable improvements were attained during the course of such treatment.
28The attendance records of TMC show a history of what in my view amounts to sporadic and intermittent attendances by the applicant. He stopped attending sessions in September 2016, despite having some approved funding still accessible to him.
29Finally, I note that in the social emotional report from the applicant’s own social work assessor dated September 26, 201614, under the section titled Physical Health and Mobility Issues, it was noted that the applicant reported no improvement in his physical condition since the date of the accident, and that his condition was “temporarily” treated by the rehabilitation sessions.
30I find that the applicant has failed to meet his onus and that the Treatment Plan for chiropractic services is neither reasonable nor necessary.
OCF-18 for a social emotional assessment
31This OCF-18 was submitted by Pain Management & Mental Health Services Ltd. and is dated December 3, 201515. It recommended a social emotional assessment in order to “identify how the [accident] effected [sic] the applicant socially and emotionally”. Apart from listing psychological issues as being among the sequelae of the accident, no further details or particulars were provided as to how these issues might be adversely affecting the applicant’s social and emotional functioning.
32Based on my review of the evidence and the parties’ submissions, I find that the applicant has failed to prove that a social emotional assessment was reasonable and necessary.
33In his IE Psychological Assessment Report dated June 16, 201516 (four months post-accident and nearly six months prior to the submission of the OCF-18 for a social emotional assessment), Dr. Smith outlined that the applicant remained interested in socializing, that he reported seeing his friends approximately once every two days, and that he engaged in other social activities such as visiting and spending time a restaurant owned by his friend and also visiting his cousin at his shop.
34In its submissions for the hearing, the respondent also included two social media profile posts made by the applicant in May and June 201517 (three months and four months respectively after the accident). The first post, dated May 16, 2015, indicates that the applicant was getting ready for a long weekend party, writing that 1,000 plus people were expected to be in attendance and that he was “Going to have an amazing time with all the boy’s!” In the second post, dated June 20, 2015, the applicant wrote that he was at a wedding “with all the boy’s!”. In reply, the applicant contends that these two social media posts concerned “isolated events” and in its view are unpersuasive.
35At the time the OCF-18 for the social emotional assessment was submitted in December 2015, the respondent had already approved an OCF-18 for a psychological assessment recommended by the applicant’s treatment provider, but the respondent had yet to receive a corresponding psychological report or a request for psychotherapy. The applicant did subsequently attend a psychological assessment with his own assessor Ms. Galina Chachshina (supervised by Dr. Kenneth Keeling) on February 11, 2016 and a copy of that report was submitted by the applicant as evidence for the hearing18. Within that report it was noted that the applicant reported good relationships with his parents and siblings, and that he had returned to work with his former company. The report outlined that the applicant presented with anxiety and depressive symptomology and recommended 12 sessions of cognitive-behavioural therapy for the applicant. Per the respondent’s submissions, the applicant had been approved for psychological treatment sessions but he stopped attending and did not fully utilize the approved funding that remained accessible to him.
36On balance, I am not convinced that the social emotional assessment was reasonable and necessary at the time it was submitted. The applicant continued to socialize with friends and relatives, he reported maintaining good relationships with his parents and siblings, and had returned to work with his former company, all of this in the time both before and shortly after the OCF-18 for a social emotional assessment was submitted.
37In reply submissions, the applicant notes that notwithstanding the respondent’s denial for the cost of this assessment, approximately nine months later on September 12, 2016 the applicant did undergo a social emotional assessment with his own assessor, social worker Joshua Pugen, and a copy of that report was submitted as evidence for the hearing19. The applicant asserts that the respondent failed to reconsider its December 2015 denial for the cost of the social emotional assessment after receiving new evidence, including a psychological report from the applicant’s own assessor dated February 12, 2016.
38I am not persuaded by the applicant’s arguments. The applicant’s own psychological assessor had already recommended cognitive behavioural therapy in February 2016. The respondent had already approved funding for psychological treatment, which the applicant stopped attending. In my view, the subsequent social emotional assessment carried out in September 2016, ultimately recommending the same form of treatment (cognitive-behavioural therapy) as previously recommended by the applicant’s own psychological assessor, is a duplication of services.
39I find that the social emotional assessment was not reasonable and necessary at the time it was originally submitted to the respondent in December 2015, nor was it reasonable and necessary when the assessment was subsequently carried out in September 2016.
OCF-18s for orthopaedic assessment and neurological assessment
40I am addressing these issues together since my analysis and decision applies equally to both.
41The OCF-18 recommending an orthopaedic assessment was prepared by Dr. Louis of TMC and is dated June 14, 201620 (approximately 16 months post-accident). The OCF-18 recommending a neurological assessment was also prepared by Dr. Louis, and is dated August 10, 201621 (some 18 months post-accident). Both of these OCF-18s list, among the applicant’s accident-related injuries, “unspecified injury of nerve root” at various levels of the spine; other unspecified nerve injuries at the left shoulder and upper arm level; concussion; and chronic post-traumatic headaches.
42Entries in the CNRs of the applicant’s family physician Dr. Louvaris on February 19, 2015 and April 7, 2015 indicate soft tissue injuries related to the accident. The entry of April 7, 2015 further notes that the applicant had full range of motion of his neck and left shoulder. The bilateral shoulder ultrasound results were normal. The CNRs of Dr. Louvaris indicate that the applicant did not suffer a loss of consciousness at the time of the accident, and specifically noted that the applicant did not complain of headaches. The CNRs of Dr. Louvaris continue to September 23, 2015. Apart from the entry of June 23, 2015 (which noted that the applicant had stopped taking all medications in mid-April 2015), no reference is made to any reported accident-related complaints made by the applicant. Subsequent entries in the CNRs do however contain reference to unrelated injuries to the applicant, including a July 2015 entry indicating that the applicant suffered a head injury as a result of hitting his head of the edge of a door (resulting in lacerations to his head and face requiring stitches and necessitating a CT scan at the hospital which yielded normal results); and an entry in September 2015 indicating that the applicant had attended the emergency department after he tripped while walking.
43The IE orthopaedic surgeon, Dr. Maistrelli, who examined the applicant on April 22, 2015, concluded in the corresponding report22 that as a result of the accident, the applicant had suffered “uncomplicated soft tissue injuries to the neck, the left trapezius shoulder blade region, and contusions to the left rib cage and the left upper and lower extremities.” Dr. Maistrelli further indicated that there were no neurological findings and no objective evidence of radiculopathy or myelopathy.
44It would appear that the applicant did not proceed with obtaining an orthopaedic assessment report by his own assessor (as he did with the social emotional assessment notwithstanding the respondent’s denial of the cost of that assessment), as no orthopaedic report was submitted as evidence by the applicant for this hearing. I therefore do not have a report from an expert of the same qualifications contesting Dr. Maistrelli’s opinion. It would also appear that the applicant did not proceed with obtaining a neurological assessment by his own assessor, since no neurological report was by submitted by the applicant for the hearing.
45While the applicant’s own functional ability assessor, chiropractor Dr. Justin Guy, indicated in his report dated October 19, 201623 that his examination of the applicant “revealed signs and symptomology of neurological impairment”, Dr. Guy went on to note that “an extensive analysis of the impairment in question is beyond the scope of [his] current assessment”.
46I prefer and place more weight on the diagnostic impressions of the applicant’s family physician Dr. Louvaris and the IE orthopaedic surgeon Dr. Maistrelli, both of whom diagnosed the applicant as suffering from soft tissue issues.
47Accordingly, I find that the OCF-18s recommending an orthopaedic assessment and neurological assessment are not reasonable and necessary.
OCF-18 for a functional ability assessment
48This OCF-18 was submitted by Dr. Justin Guy and is dated December 15, 201524.
49In its denial letter dated December 24, 2015, the respondent cited the IE report of Dr. Maistrelli who found “no reproducible impairments from a musculoligamentous, osseous or neurologic perspective as a result of the accident”. The denial letter went on to state that Dr. Maistrelli “opined that [the applicant] could return to [his] pre-accident employment without restrictions on a full time basis”, such that the proposed functional ability assessment was not reasonably required.
50Having reviewed the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that the functional ability assessment was reasonable and necessary at the time the OCF-18 was originally submitted to the respondent in December 2015. The orthopaedic IE assessor, Dr. Maistrelli, found no objective reproducible accident-related impairments when he assessed the applicant in April 2015. The CNRs of Dr. Louvaris, which continue to September 23, 2015, do not contain entries that are in my view compelling or indicative of ongoing accident-related complaints made by the applicant. Shortly after this OCF-18 was submitted, the applicant reported to his own psychological assessor on February 11, 2016, that he had returned to work with his former company.
51Although the respondent denied approval of this OCF-18 in December 2015, the applicant did eventually proceed with a functional ability assessment about 10 months later with Dr. Guy on October 12, 2016, and a copy of Dr. Guy’s report dated October 19, 2016 was submitted as evidence25. Dr. Guy’s report outlined the applicant’s self-reported ongoing physical injuries from the subject accident of neck pain, mid and low back pain, shoulder pain and wrist pain. Dr. Guy goes on to state that his objective examination of the applicant revealed multiple categories of functional impairment “including range of motion, reaching, occasional mobility, lifting strength and handgrip strength”. However, Dr. Guy’s report is silent as to any reference to the applicant’s past history of injuries from prior motor vehicle accidents; the prior workplace injury; or a prior 2014 wrist injury as documented in the CNRs of Dr. Louvaris. Absent any reference to the applicant’s past injuries, and set against the totality of the records and reports before me, I have placed limited weight on Dr. Guy’s report and his opinion of objective functional impairments as being attributable to the subject accident.
52I find that the applicant has failed to establish that he was suffering from a physical impairment as a result of the subject accident of a degree that would affect his employment or other activities so as to necessitate a functional ability assessment. I find that the applicant has not proven that the assessment was reasonable and necessary at the time the OCF-18 was originally submitted to the respondent in December 2015, nor that it was reasonable and necessary when the assessment was subsequently conducted in October 2016.
OCF-18 for a chronic pain assessment
53This OCF-18 was submitted by Dr. Igor Wilderman of TMC, and is dated August 17, 201626 (some 18 months post-accident).
54Based on the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that, from a physical perspective, a chronic pain assessment is reasonable and necessary. I have already outlined my findings throughout this decision concerning the difficulties I had with respect to the evidence (or lack thereof) as to the applicant’s claims of physical injuries and impairments directly attributable to the subject accident.
55I have not overlooked that the respondent’s own IE psychological assessor, Dr. Smith, in his June 2015 report, had diagnosed the applicant with: “Pain Disorder with psychological factors” as being attributable to the accident and “Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and depressed mood” attributable to multiple factors including “concurrent life stressors unrelated to the [subject] MVA”. Dr. Smith concluded that the applicant would benefit from a brief course of psychotherapy to address “pain avoidance and disability-focused cognitions.”
56What I find problematic, however, when assessing the reasonableness and necessity of a chronic pain assessment from a psychological standpoint, is that the respondent approved funding for the applicant in February 2016, including for psychological treatment, but the applicant did not fully incur the amount of approved funding. I have no report from the applicant’s treating psychologist to indicate whether, with psychological treatment, there was improvements in the applicant’s psychological functioning.
57I therefore find that the applicant has failed to prove that the OCF-18 for a chronic pain assessment is reasonable and necessary on a physical and/or psychological basis.
Parties Respective Claims for Costs
58Rule 19.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) provides that a party may make a request to the Tribunal for costs where it believes another party in a proceeding has acted unreasonably, frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith [emphasis added]. Rule 2.17 of the Rules defines a “proceeding” as being “the entire Tribunal process from the start of an appeal to the time the matter is finally resolved”.
59Rule 19.4 further sets out a requirement that a party’s submission on costs shall “set out the reasons for the request and the particulars of the other party’s conduct that are alleged to be unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.”
60Neither party provided any submissions on the issue of costs. I therefore have no particulars before me from either party as to any conduct by the other party in the proceeding before the Tribunal that would warrant an order of costs under Rule 19.
61Accordingly, neither party is entitled to costs.
CONCLUSION:
62For reasons set out above, I find that that:
i. The applicant is not entitled to medical benefits for the OCF-18s relating to assistive devices and chiropractic services;
ii. The applicant is not entitled to payment for any of the five OCF-18s relating to costs of examinations;
iii. Since no benefits are ordered payable, the applicant is not entitled to interest;
iv. Neither party is entitled to costs.
Released: November 29, 2017
Gemma Harmison, Adjudicator
Footnotes
- Issues i and ii were incorrectly detailed in the Case Conference Order of April 12, 2017. I have corrected them in this decision to reflect the correct amounts and the correct services as confirmed on review of those OCF-18s. The denial dates for Issues iv and vii have also been corrected based on review of the OCF-18s and corresponding denial letters submitted by the applicant in its submissions for this hearing.
- The parties in their written submissions each sought costs of the proceeding.
- Actual records from the walk-in clinic were not submitted as evidence for the hearing.
- Respondent’s Submissions, Tab 2
- Applicant’s Submissions, Tab 8
- Respondent’s Submissions, Tab 20
- Respondent’s Submissions, Tab 19
- Applicant’s Submissions, Tab 1
- Respondent’s Submissions, Tab 11
- Respondent’s Submissions, Tab 10
- Applicant’s Submissions, Tab 10
- Respondent’s Submissions, Tab 9
- Applicant’s Submissions, Tab 2
- Applicant’s Submissions, Tab 12
- Applicant’s Submissions, Tab 3
- Respondent’s Submissions, Tab 10
- Respondent’s Submissions, Tab 18
- Applicant’s Submissions, Tab 9
- Applicant’s Submissions, Tab 12
- Applicant’s Submissions, Tab 5
- Applicant’s Submissions, Tab 6
- Respondent’s Submissions, Tab 9
- Applicant’s Submissions, Tab 11
- Applicant’s Submissions, Tab 4
- Applicant’s Submissions, Tab 11
- Applicant’s Submissions, Tab 7