Saly Botelho

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant did not meet her burden to prove a functional impairment from chronic pain or a psychological impairment, placing weight on the respondent's independent medical and psychological evaluations which included objective testing.

As the applicant remained subject to the MIG, her claims for various treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and funding for a neuropsychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she had resumed many pre-accident activities including driving and part-time work.

The Tribunal also denied the treatment plan, preferring the respondent's expert evidence that there was no indication of a traumatic brain injury to justify the neuropsychological assessments.

Claims for interest and an award were consequently dismissed.

The self-represented applicant sought income replacement benefits and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant failed to submit any medical evidence to support his claims.

The adjudicator relied on the respondent's insurer's examination reports, which concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment and had no physical or psychological barriers to returning to work.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

Following a trial regarding rectification of a divorce judgment, the court addressed costs.

The applicant successfully obtained rectification of the divorce judgment under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules to reflect the parties’ intention that a $100,000 payment be made, while the respondent achieved partial success by obtaining certain credits against that amount.

The court found the applicant had succeeded on the dominant issue but noted the legal question concerning the scope of Rule 25(19) was novel and that some of the litigation arose due to solicitor negligence.

Balancing these considerations, and finding no unreasonable conduct by the respondent within Rule 24(11), the court reduced the costs award.

Nominal costs were awarded to reflect divided success and the unusual circumstances of the case.

The applicant sought rectification of a 2006 divorce order that omitted agreed corollary relief, including $100,000 in support arrears and ongoing support, after solicitor error resulted in a divorce simpliciter.

Following a trial directed on the factual dispute, the court found a sufficient common intention between the parties to support rectification and held that Rule 25(19)(b) permits amendment where an order contains a mistake arising from inadvertent omission.

The court rejected arguments based on solicitor negligence, delay, laches, and res judicata, finding no prejudice sufficient to bar equitable relief.

After crediting specified payments made since the order, the court fixed remaining support arrears at $51,392.11.