— payment or reimbursement for costs of examinations;
— interest on all overdue payments; and
— punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages of $500,000.
 The defendant opposed the amendments sought. The master
summarized the parties’ respective positions, which mirror the
submissions on this motion [at paras. 15 and 16]:
In the present case, the Defendant argues that the proposed amendments
are untenable for two reasons: First, the Superior Court no longer has juris-
diction over the accident benefits sought because the Fresh Claim is brought
after April 1, 2016 when all SABs matters are to be determined by LAT.
In particular the Defendant takes issue with the claim for a declaration of
catastrophic impairment and punitive damages. To this the Plaintiff states
that the relief sought in the Fresh Claim is not new but rather a particulari-
zation and re-drafting of what was already there.
Second, the Defendant submits that the amounts claimed including the
aggravated and punitive damages were not mediated prior to the original
Claim being issued and therefore could not properly be the subject of the original Claim. The Plaintiff regards this as a defect that should be cured due to
the deleterious effect of bifurcation.
 The master permitted the amendments. The essence of her
decision is captured at para. 24:
Taking a fair and liberal approach sometimes involves applying a measure of
common sense and having sensitivity to the overriding goal of achieving the
just and fair resolution of disputes. One goal of the legislation is self-evident
— it is to remove the adjudication of SABS from the Superior Court to a spe-
cialized tribunal who like many tribunals, will develop the required expertise
to deliver just and expeditious resolutions for these litigants.
It cannot be that the purpose of the amendments is to bifurcate matters that
were caught in the transition period such that for the same accident and the
same benefits, the Plaintiff must go to one Court to resolve her entitlement to
the benefits, and to go another to determine if there has been catastrophic
impairment and insurer conduct that warrants punitive damages (this is
assuming that LAT can even award such damages which I do not need to
determine for the purposes of this motion). The entitlement to certain benefits will depend on if there is catastrophic impairment, and the appropriateness of the Defendant’s refusal to pay will impact the punitive damages
analysis. In my view, the Plaintiff’s claim for SABs ought to be adjudicated by
the same judicial body to avoid duplication and wasted judicial resources. In
this case, that judicial body is the Superior Court of Justice because the original Claim was commenced there. At the very least, it is not in interests of justice in the facts of this particular case to allow for bifurcation.
 She also noted [at para. 22] that in the Lucas-Logan decision, supra, there was no “reformulation and redrafting of existing
claims”, which is an important distinguishing feature between
the two decisions.
 The proposed amendments were permitted.