Dr. David Berbrayer

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary damages following a jury trial in a personal injury action.

The jury awarded general damages but zero for past income loss, future income loss, future housekeeping, and future healthcare costs.

The motion judge, exercising statutory duty to determine the threshold under s. 267.5(5)(b) of the Insurance Act, found that the plaintiff's impairments were not permanent, important, or serious.

The judge considered the jury's implied findings regarding the plaintiff's credibility and the non-permanence of injuries, preferring the defendants' medical expert evidence.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove that his pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery within the MIG limits, failed to establish a psychological injury warranting removal, and did not meet the criteria for chronic pain.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed minor, his entitlement to medical benefits was governed by the MIG, and the appeal was denied.

The minor plaintiff suffered a severe hypoxic-ischemic brain injury at birth due to the admitted negligence of the defendant hospital's nurses in artificially rupturing the membranes.

The defendant conceded the breach of the standard of care and that it caused the plaintiff's ataxic hypotonic cerebral palsy, but argued her cognitive and behavioural issues were caused by genetically inherited ADHD.

The court rejected the genetic ADHD theory, finding the birth injury was the sole cause of all the plaintiff's physical, cognitive, and behavioural deficits.

The court awarded over $5.2 million in damages, including $250,000 for general damages, $1.88 million for future loss of income, and extensive future care costs for therapies, supported independent living, and home modifications.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Zhen Ling Yan, to attend defence psychological, neurological, and physiatry assessments in a motor vehicle accident action.

The plaintiffs argued the defendant required leave under Rule 48.04(1) as the action was set down for trial.

The Master found leave was not required, distinguishing between setting an action down for trial and consenting to it being placed on a trial list under Rule 48.06(1).

The Master further found the assessments necessary for trial fairness, given the plaintiff's claims of serious injuries and expert reports.

The motion was granted, and the defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs.

Following a motor vehicle collision, the defendants admitted liability and the jury awarded general damages and future health care expenses.

While the jury was deliberating, the defendants brought a threshold motion under the Insurance Act seeking a declaration that the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory exception for permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.

The court accepted that the plaintiff had chronic pain and that his condition was permanent, but held the evidence did not establish a serious impairment causing substantial interference with regular training or most usual activities of daily living.

The plaintiff's ability to complete ESL training and continue household activities undermined the claim that the threshold was met.

The motion was granted and the action dismissed.