Brennan Kahler

The plaintiff was involved in a head-on motor vehicle collision caused by the defendants.

The defendants did not contest liability.

The trial focused on the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and damages.

The plaintiff claimed to have suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, chronic pain, and psychiatric injuries, rendering him unable to return to his employment as a Lead Hand electrician for the City of Guelph.

The defendants argued the plaintiff's injuries were exaggerated and that he could return to work with accommodation.

The court accepted the evidence of the plaintiff and his treating medical experts, finding that he suffered permanent and serious impairments, including cognitive deficits, vision and hearing issues, and chronic pain.

The court awarded the plaintiff $225,000 in general damages, $38,177.40 in special damages, $75,308 for past lost wages, $1,282,074 for future income loss, and $735,092 for future care costs.

The defendant municipality brought a motion to transfer a personal injury action from Barrie to London.

The plaintiffs, who were injured in a bicycle-motor vehicle collision in London but now reside in Sarnia, opposed the transfer and requested the matter be transferred to Sarnia instead.

The court applied the holistic test under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the collision occurred in London, the municipal defendant's snow clearing practices were at issue, and London offered significantly better judicial resources and courtroom availability, the court ordered the proceeding transferred to London.

The court denied approval of a settlement for a party under disability due to significant deficiencies in the motion material.

These deficiencies included insufficient medical evidence to assess the injured party's present and future needs, lack of full disclosure regarding a companion tort action and any settlement offers therein, and inadequate details for the proposed allocation of settlement funds.

Furthermore, the court found insufficient information regarding a loan from counsel to the applicant and the fairness and reasonableness of the contingency fee agreement, which appeared to conflate tort and accident benefits claims.

The court also dismissed the request to seal the court record, emphasizing the high bar for such an extraordinary order.

The matter was to be re-submitted after the identified deficiencies were addressed.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs after successfully opposing a motion by the defendant, The Corporation of the Township of Severn, to compel production of an unedited videotaped witness statement.

The court found the plaintiffs' offer to settle, made four days before the motion, did not comply with Rule 49.10 but was a genuine effort to settle and should be considered under Rule 49.13.

Considering the offer, the medium-high complexity of the motion, its unnecessity, and the importance of litigation privilege, the court awarded the plaintiffs substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer, fixed at $9,500.