Dr. Boynton

The plaintiff, Sabrina Maher, sued the defendant, Marija Kiric, for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident in which Maher, riding her bicycle, was struck by Kiric’s car.

Maher claimed she suffered permanent serious impairment, including physical, cognitive, and psychiatric injuries.

The court considered whether Maher’s claims for non-pecuniary loss and health care expenses were barred by the Insurance Act threshold.

After reviewing the evidence, including medical records and expert testimony, the court found that Maher did not sustain a permanent serious impairment as a result of the accident.

The court dismissed her claims for non-pecuniary loss and health care expenses.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend her statement of claim to limit damages to $200,000 and to strike the jury notice, thereby transferring the action to the Simplified Procedure track under Rule 76.

The defendants opposed, citing delay and potential prejudice.

The court granted leave, finding a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances due to the increased monetary threshold for Simplified Procedure and the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on jury trials.

The court further found that striking the jury notice and proceeding under Simplified Procedure was in the best interests of justice, promoting proportionality, accessibility, and expeditious resolution, without causing functional disadvantage to the defendants.

This costs endorsement followed a four-week jury trial where the plaintiffs received a net award of $191,228.65.

The defendant's pre-trial offer of $250,000 to settle all claims was found to attract Rule 49.10 cost consequences, despite being a lump sum and inseverable offer to multiple plaintiffs, due to the application of s. 62(1) of the Family Law Act.

The court adjusted the defendant's claimed costs downward, particularly for internal counsel's estimated time, to ensure indemnity rather than a windfall.

The plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs up to the offer date, and the defendant from that date forward.

A net payment of $21,923.17 in costs was ordered from the defendant to the plaintiffs.

Prejudgment interest on non-pecuniary damages was ordered to run until the end of the trial.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed his claims for aquatic therapy, physiotherapy, and a chronic pain assessment.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in law by applying the doctrine of res judicata to his treatment plans and by improperly weighing the medical evidence of his expert.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law or fact.

The adjudicator correctly applied res judicata as the core issues had been previously decided, and properly exercised discretion in preferring the evidence of an orthopaedic surgeon over the applicant's medical expert.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for aquatic therapy, physiotherapy, and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans, arguing they were not reasonable and necessary, and that the claims for physiotherapy and chronic pain treatment were barred by res judicata due to a previous Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal agreed that res judicata applied to the physiotherapy and chronic pain claims, as they had been previously adjudicated on the merits with no new objective evidence of deterioration.

The Tribunal also found the aquatic therapy plan unreasonable given the availability of a much cheaper aquafit program.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and CBD oil following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits based on insurer examinations concluding the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Tribunal found that one physiotherapy treatment plan and a portion of the CBD oil treatment plan were reasonable and necessary to manage the applicant's chronic back pain, noting flare-ups occurred when treatment ceased.

The remaining physiotherapy plans and assessment costs for the CBD oil were denied.

In a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident, the jury awarded the plaintiff general damages.

The defendants subsequently brought a threshold motion, arguing that the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss was barred because she failed to establish a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function under the Insurance Act.

The court, applying the three-part Meyer v. Bright inquiry, found that while the plaintiff experienced intermittent pain, her impairment did not substantially interfere with her regular employment or most usual daily activities, considering her age and pre-accident lifestyle.

The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary damages.