• ABOUT

  • CASES

  • COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

  • PUBLICATIONS

  • ENGAGEMENTS

  • BLOG

Camilla Oblak is an Associate at Schultz Law Group LLP. She was called to the Ontario Bar in 2023. 

Prior to joining Schultz Law Group LLP, Camilla worked at an Insurance Defence law firm for seven years initially as a legal assistant and then moving into a law clerk position. Camilla attended law school in the UK at the University of Birmingham where she obtained her LLB. During law school, she was a member of the Pro Bono Group, where she volunteered at the Central England Law Centre Legal Aid Office assisting with immigration and asylum disputes during the height of Brexit.

Camilla practices primarily in insurance defence litigation and accident benefit claims. She represents clients before the License Appeal Tribunal, the Small Claims Court, and the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Outside work, she enjoys traveling, exploring new food spots, and spending time with her family and friends.

 

WORK EXPERIENCE

Associate, Schultz Law Group LLP – September 2024 to Present

Associate, Kostyniuk & Greenside Lawyers, Toronto – September 2023 to September 2024

Articling Student, Kostyniuk & Greenside Lawyers, Toronto – November 2021 to September 2022

Law Clerk/ Legal Assistant, Kostyniuk & Greenside Lawyers, Toronto – July 2016 to November 2021

 

EDUCATION

Year of Call: 2023

NCA, Federation of Law Societies, issued on November 5, 2021

University of Birmingham, LLB (2020)

University of Toronto, Double Major BA, Criminology and Sociology (2016)

 

Selvaratnam v Definity Insurance Company, 2026 CanLII 6215 (ON LAT)
2026-05-11
READ NOW
READ SUMMARY
In Selvaratnam v. Definity Insurance Company, the LAT considered whether the Applicant's injuries fell outside the MIG, whether he was entitled to funding for a disputed physiotherapy treatment plan, and whether he was entitled to interest on overdue benefits. The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to prove a pre-existing condition or chronic pain impairment that would remove him from the MIG, and therefore denied the treatment plan and interest, dismissing the application.
Alnahlawi v Definity Insurance Company, 2026 CanLII 15083 (ON LAT)
2026-05-11
READ NOW
READ SUMMARY
In Alnahlawi v. Definity Insurance Company, the issues in dispute were whether the Applicant's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), entitlement to psychological and physiotherapy treatment plans and assessment costs, and entitlement to interest and a special award. The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG, remained subject to the MIG, and was therefore not entitled to the disputed benefits, interest, or an award.
Speid v Definity Insurance Company, 2026 CanLII 26851 (ON LAT)
2026-05-11
READ NOW
READ SUMMARY
In Speid v. Definity Insurance Company, the LAT considered whether the Applicant was barred by the limitation period from pursuing certain benefits, whether he remained subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), and whether he was entitled to income replacement benefits, physiotherapy treatment plans, and a psychological assessment, along with interest and a s.10 award. The Tribunal held that the Applicant was barred under s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule from proceeding on the income replacement and a physiotherapy claim, found that his injuries remained within the MIG, and concluded that the insurer’s denials and assessments complied with s. 38(8) and 44(5), resulting in dismissal of all remaining claims with no interest or award payable.
Sothilingam v Definity Insurance Company, 2026 CanLII 29573 (ON LAT),
2026-05-11
READ NOW
READ SUMMARY
In Sothilingam v. Definity Insurance Company, the issues in dispute were whether the Applicant’s injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), whether he was entitled to payment of a disputed physiotherapy OCF-18, along with interest on any overdue benefits. The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s injuries were limited to sprain and strain-type injuries falling within the MIG, and therefore he was not entitled to removal from the MIG, the treatment plan, or interest.
Jorabian v Definity Insurance Company, 2026 CanLII 29565 (ON LAT)
2026-05-11
READ NOW
READ SUMMARY
In Jorabian v. Definity Insurance Company, the issues in dispute were whether the Applicant’s injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), whether he was entitled to partial reimbursement for disputed chiropractic, massage, and physiotherapy treatment plans, and whether he was entitled to interest on overdue benefits. The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment sufficient to remove him from the MIG, relied primarily on insufficient clinical notes from his treating clinic, and therefore remained subject to the MIG with no entitlement to the disputed treatment plans or interest, resulting in dismissal of the application.
Gupan v Definity Insurance Company, 2026 CanLII 31456 (ON LAT)
2026-05-11
READ NOW
READ SUMMARY
In Gupan v. Definity Insurance Company, the issues in dispute were whether the Applicant was barred from proceeding due to failure to notify the insurer within the statutory time limits under s. 32 of the SABS, and, if not barred, whether he was entitled to various medical benefits (including physiotherapy, psychological and orthopedic assessments), interest, and a s.10 award. The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to provide notice of the accident and intention to claim benefits within the required timeframe and did not establish a reasonable explanation under s. 34, resulting in the application being statute-barred under s. 55(1)1 and dismissed without consideration of the substantive benefit claims.
Tharmarajah v Definity Insurance Company, 2026 CanLII 42206 (ON LAT)
2026-05-11
READ NOW
READ SUMMARY
In Tharmarajah v. Definity Insurance Company, the issues in dispute were whether the Applicant remained subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), whether he was entitled to several disputed chiropractic and psychological treatment plans, and whether he was barred from proceeding due to non-compliance with s. 44 insurer examination requirements under the SABS. The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to attend a reasonably necessary s. 44 neurological examination and therefore was barred from pursuing several treatment claims under s. 55(1), and further found he failed to meet his onus for removal from the MIG or entitlement to treatment, resulting in dismissal of the application.