First, it is important to bear in mind the Interpretation
Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.11 provides:
10. Every Act shall be deemed to be remedial, whether its immediate purport is to direct the doing of any thing that the Legislature deems to be for
the public good or to prevent or punish the doing of any thing that it deems
to be contrary to the public good, and shall accordingly receive such fair, large
and liberal construction and interpretation as will best ensure the attainment
of the object of the Act according to its true intent, meaning and spirit.
 Of course, the purpose of the Insurance Act and SABS is to
provide compensation to qualified individuals who were injured in
motor vehicle accidents.
 Second, as noted, s. 21(2)2 permits a proceeding to be continued post-transition if brought in accordance with s. 281(1)(a)
of the pre-transition Act. A proceeding includes an action (rule
 Section 281(1)(a) is subject to subsection (b), which
requires a failed mediation before an action may be brought.
However, as already noted, that step is no longer available
because the amendments have eliminated the process and
presumably, the institutional supports that would accompany it.
 Other concerns arise if the defendant’s submission were
correct. There would be a duplication of evidence if two parallel
proceedings, one in court and the other before the LAT. Because
a claim for punitive damages is advanced, the insurer’s handling
of the file throughout its adjustment process until trial is relevant. Finally, there is the prospect of inconsistent findings if proceedings continue in two separate forums.
 Turning then to the issue of non-compensable prejudice,
none exists in the circumstances here. As noted, the insurer had
the OCF-19 in February 2016. Assessments proceeded in the late
spring and early summer of 2016. Examinations for discovery
were conducted in November 2016, and I am advised that questions relevant to catastrophic impairment were asked. As of the
date of the motion’s hearing, the matter had not yet been set
down so further discoveries are available without running afoul of
rule 48.04(1). The defendant does not allege prejudice.
 For these reasons, the motion is granted, and the amendments are permitted. If the parties cannot agree, I will receive
brief written submissions on costs by January 16, 2019, according
to a timetable that I leave to the parties to arrange.
 I wish to thank counsel for their well-prepared materials
and helpful submissions.