Andrew Elias

The moving defendants sought to set aside a noting in default and dismiss or stay an Ontario action arising from a motor vehicle collision in Pennsylvania on the basis that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and that Pennsylvania was the more appropriate forum.

Applying the framework in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that a real and substantial connection existed because one alleged joint tortfeasor was resident in Ontario and the plaintiff claimed inseparable damages against multiple defendants.

The court further held that the moving defendants failed to demonstrate that Pennsylvania was clearly the more appropriate forum under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, particularly given that most witnesses and the plaintiff’s damages evidence were located in Ontario.

The motions to dismiss or stay the action were therefore dismissed, although the noting in default against the moving defendants was set aside on consent.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), transportation expenses, and the cost of a medical assessment.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant had returned to work and did not meet the disability tests.

The arbitrator found the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment for the first 104 weeks and a complete inability to engage in suitable employment thereafter until she commenced a new career.

The arbitrator awarded the IRBs, transportation expenses, and assessment costs.

Furthermore, the arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay a $10,000 special award because it unreasonably withheld IRBs by failing to have its accountant review updated financial information that would have revealed flaws in its initial denial.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident claim, the defendant brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory requirement of a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.

The plaintiff adduced evidence from multiple medical experts and lay witnesses demonstrating chronic pain that substantially interfered with her employment and daily living.

Despite some credibility issues regarding the plaintiff's employment history and surveillance footage, the court found the corroborating medical and lay evidence sufficient to establish the impairment.

The motion was dismissed.

In a motor vehicle accident damages trial where liability was admitted, the court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of surveillance video evidence of the plaintiff.

The defendant sought to use the video under Rule 30.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to impeach the plaintiff’s credibility regarding the extent of her physical limitations.

Applying the principles from Landolfi v. Fargione, the court held that evidence tendered solely for impeachment must be relevant to credibility on a material issue and its probative value must outweigh its prejudicial effect.

The surveillance showing the plaintiff performing daily activities was relevant to credibility and its probative value, while modest, was not trifling.

The court ruled the videos admissible solely for impeachment purposes, with a limiting instruction to the jury.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that despite not having the benefit of the Combined Air decision, the motion judge developed a full appreciation of the case.

The motion judge was entitled to engage in a limited weighing of the evidence and correctly concluded there was no evidence of over service of alcohol by the respondent.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.