C. A. Stewart

The defendant Scottish & York Insurance Co. Limited brought a motion under Rule 26.01 to amend its statement of defence and, if necessary, under Rule 51.05 to withdraw an admission.

The plaintiff, Gordon Djuric, opposed, arguing the amendments constituted a withdrawal of an admission regarding OPCF 44R underinsured motorist coverage and would cause non-compensable prejudice, particularly affecting his accident benefits settlement.

The court found that the original statement of defence did not contain an unambiguous admission of OPCF 44R coverage.

Furthermore, the court determined that the alleged prejudice (denial of benefits the plaintiff may not have been entitled to) was not the type of non-compensable prejudice contemplated by Rule 26.01.

Leave to amend the statement of defence was granted, and costs were awarded to Scottish & York.

The plaintiff's action for damages from a motor vehicle accident was dismissed after a jury award for lost income and general damages was netted to zero due to deductions for income replacement benefits and the statutory deductible.

The defendants, being wholly successful, sought partial indemnity costs of $160,000.

The plaintiff argued costs should be limited to her $100,000 adverse costs insurance policy and that the defendant's settlement offers were unreasonable.

The court found adverse costs insurance irrelevant and the defendant's settlement offers reasonable, fixing costs at $160,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury trial, the trial judge ruled on the questions to be put to the jury and the defendants' threshold motion.

The judge declined to put questions on future health care costs and loss of competitive advantage to the jury due to insufficient evidence and risk of double recovery.

On the threshold motion, the judge held that a psychologist does not qualify as a 'physician' under s. 4.3 of O. Reg. 461/96.

Furthermore, the judge found that the plaintiff failed to prove she sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function, noting her successful return to school and employment.

The defendants' motion to dismiss the claim for non-pecuniary damages was granted.