Christopher A. Richard

This appeal concerned a jury award for damages in a motor vehicle accident case, specifically challenging the trial judge's directions on causation and the admissibility of evidence.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the "but for" test for causation by using "material contribution" language and improperly excluded a Statistics Canada report and curtailed re-examination of an expert.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury, despite the "material contribution" language, would have properly understood the "but for" test.

The court also upheld the exclusion of the Statistics Canada report due to lack of authentication and reliance by the expert, and found no reversible error in the re-examination ruling.

Furthermore, the court affirmed that hypothetical past income loss is to be proven on a "real and substantial possibility" standard, not on a balance of probabilities.

Following a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff $150,000 in general damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a threshold motion arguing the claims were barred by the Insurance Act.

The court applied the three-part threshold analysis and found the plaintiff suffered a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical function due to chronic pain and shoulder instability.

The court held that the plaintiff's inability to continue his pre-accident employment as a meat cutter, despite being accommodated with a different minimum-wage role by the same employer, constituted a substantial interference with his regular employment.

The defendants' motion was dismissed.

The appellant dentist appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $21,687.49 for dental negligence.

The respondent suffered permanent damage to her lip implants during a wisdom tooth extraction.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant breached the standard of care by failing to inform himself on how to handle the implants and breached his duty of informed consent by failing to disclose the material risks of the procedure to the implants.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant challenged a jury verdict in a motor vehicle personal injury action, arguing that the trial judge's charge inadequately corrected improper closing submissions on non-pecuniary damages and that the $200,000 award for pain and suffering was inordinately high.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge expressly instructed the jury not to use a mathematical extrapolation approach and provided adequate guidance on assessing general damages.

Applying the deferential standard for appellate review of jury awards, the court found no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice and concluded the award was not so plainly unreasonable and unjust as to warrant intervention.

The appeal was dismissed with fixed costs to the respondents.

The appellant gas station owner suffered business interruption and equipment damage when a cracked fill-pipe allowed water to contaminate its underground fuel storage tank.

The respondent insurer denied coverage under an all-risks policy, arguing the loss was not fortuitous.

At trial, the judge granted the insurer's motion for non-suit, finding the appellant failed to prove the exact cause of the crack via expert evidence.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held the trial judge erred in law.

The appellant only needed to adduce evidence that the loss was not expected in the ordinary course of business, which it did through testimony from an experienced contractor and the owner.

The appeal was allowed and judgment was entered for the appellant.

Following a jury trial in a motor vehicle personal injury action where liability was admitted and damages were awarded, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiffs sought over $365,000 in fees and disbursements, including substantial indemnity costs after an offer to settle.

The defendant conceded entitlement to costs but argued the claimed fees and some disbursements were excessive.

Applying the principles under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the absence of a detailed Bill of Costs and the involvement of multiple law firms made it difficult to assess duplication and reasonableness of services.

The court reduced the requested amounts and fixed total costs, including fees, threshold motion costs, and allowable disbursements, at $157,292.57 inclusive of HST.

The applicant, who suffered from pre-existing secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, was injured in a motor vehicle accident.

Following the accident, his mobility rapidly declined, necessitating a wheelchair-accessible vehicle.

The insurer denied the $41,761.45 claim for vehicle modifications, arguing the decline was the natural progression of his disease.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's treating neurologist, finding that the trauma and subsequent hospital deconditioning materially contributed to the rapid functional decline.

The claim for rehabilitation benefits was granted.