(2) The proceedings referred to in subsection (1) are the following:
1. A mediation under section 280 of the pre-transition date Act.
2. A proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction brought in
accordance with clause 281(1)(a) of the pre-transition date Act.
3. An arbitration under section 282 of the pre-transition date Act.
4. An appeal under section 283 of the pre-transition date Act.
5. An application for a variation or revocation of an order under subsection 284 of the pre-transition date Act.
(6) For greater certainty, if mediation fails, a court proceeding or arbitration
may not be commenced on or after the transition date but the insured person
or the insurer may apply to the Licence Appeal Tribunal under subsection
280 (2) of the Act.
 Section 281 of the pre-transition Act, to which Regulation
664 refers, provided:
281(1) Subject to subsection (2),
(a) the insured person may bring a proceeding in a court of competent
(b) the insured person may refer the issues in dispute to an arbitrator
under section 282; or
(c) the insurer and the insured person may agree to submit any issue
in dispute to any person for arbitration in accordance with the
Arbitration Act, 1991.
(2) No person may bring a proceeding in any court, refer the issues in dispute to an arbitrator under section 282 or agree to submit an issue for arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Act, 1991 unless mediation was
sought, mediation failed and, if the issues in dispute were referred for an
evaluation under section 280.1, the report of the person who performed the
evaluation has been given to the parties.
 In this case, the plaintiff sued for certain SABs after they
were denied by the defendant. His statement of claim was issued
on December 18, 2015. He now seeks to amend his claim to plead
entitlement to medical and rehabilitation benefits denied since
the claim was issued, and for a declaration that he suffers from
a catastrophic impairment as defined in the SABS. He says these
claims are not new post-transition claims but were raised in the
original pleading. He characterizes the amendments as simply
particularizing his earlier pleading.
 The defendant disagrees. It says the original statement of
claim does not include, implicitly or explicitly, what is now being
sought by the proposed amendments. The defendant submits that