C. Ross

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and awarded $129,000 in damages by a jury, including $100,000 for past income loss.

The parties brought a motion to determine whether Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) and Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) payments received by the plaintiff were deductible from the income loss award under s. 267.8(1)2 of the Insurance Act.

The court held that the benefits were intended as income replacement and were received 'in respect of the incident' because the plaintiff claimed his inability to work was entirely due to the accident, not COVID-19.

Consequently, the total amount of CERB and CRB received is deductible from the jury's award for past income loss.

The defendant Bolderson proposed to bring a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and the co-defendant's crossclaim arising from a motor vehicle accident.

A previous judge scheduled the motion but expressed concern about its appropriateness given the delivery of jury notices and the potential that it would not resolve all issues.

Following a case conference, the court directed the matter to proceed to the scheduled summary judgment motion.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for three counts of assault against his on-again/off-again partner.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to consider consent, self-defence, defence of property, and the law in Scopelliti, and by treating the assaults as domestic violence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that self-defence and defence of property were not raised at trial, there was no evidence of consent, the Scopelliti reference was dicta, and the evidence supported a finding of a domestic relationship.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision where liability was admitted and damages remained in issue, the plaintiff moved to exclude evidence from experts who prepared accident benefits reports for the plaintiff’s insurer.

The plaintiff argued the reports were irrelevant, non-compliant with Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, prejudicial to trial fairness, and duplicative.

The court held that although the experts had not signed the Form 53 acknowledgement required under Rule 53.03(2.1), the rule applied even to experts retained by non-parties and the non‑compliance could be cured by granting leave subject to obtaining the acknowledgement.

The court found portions of the reports remained relevant to the plaintiff’s cognitive, emotional, and physical condition at an intermediate stage following the accident, though opinions on employability were excluded as no longer relevant.

The motion to exclude the expert evidence was dismissed, subject to conditions.