Barry Evans

Costs ruling following a jury trial in which the plaintiff succeeded on a malicious prosecution claim but failed on wrongful arrest and excessive force claims.

The jury awarded $63,900 in damages, which exceeded the plaintiff's Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court applied a 20% reduction to counsel fees to reflect divided success, deducted $20,000 for the use of two senior counsel, and disallowed expert disbursements of $19,700 related to the unsuccessful claims.

The court rejected a distributive costs approach and held that the plaintiff was entitled to substantial indemnity costs from the date of the Rule 49 offer, awarding total costs of $180,220.70.

Following a jury trial where the plaintiff was awarded $62,500 in general damages for injuries sustained in a rear-end motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court reviewed the medical evidence and surveillance footage, noting inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony and evidence of her ability to perform daily activities.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove her injuries substantially interfered with her usual activities of daily living.

The defendants' motion was granted, barring the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss.

During a jury trial for a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff brought a motion to exclude portions of the defence orthopedic expert's proposed testimony.

The plaintiff objected to the expert testifying about symptom exaggeration and the theory of chronic pain syndrome (central sensitization).

Applying the Mohan and Abbey frameworks, the court allowed the expert to testify regarding symptom exaggeration, finding it within his clinical expertise.

However, the court excluded his opinions on central sensitization, ruling he lacked the necessary qualifications and his evidence failed the gatekeeper cost-benefit analysis.

The expert was also restricted from testifying about undisclosed research and cautioned to present his evidence professionally.

During a personal injury jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants sought to introduce surveillance videos of the plaintiff from 2013 and 2015 as substantive evidence.

The plaintiff objected, arguing the videos lacked probative value because she had already testified she could perform the recorded activities on a 'good day,' and that their admission would be prejudicial.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding the videos relevant to assessing the degree of her impairment and concluding that their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The 2013 and 2015 surveillance videos were ruled admissible.