2 total
The Court of Appeal affirmed that formal medical opinions are not required to trigger the limitation period for personal injury claims.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of his personal injury action, which was found to be statute-barred due to the two-year limitation period.
The motion judge concluded that the appellant's injuries were discoverable well within the limitation period.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's application of discoverability principles under the Limitations Act and the threshold for serious and permanent impairment under the Insurance Act.
The Court clarified that formal medical opinions required for a threshold motion are not necessary to trigger the limitation period.
Applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline; claims for non-earner and medical benefits dismissed.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits, cost of examinations, and a non-earner benefit.
The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from chronic pain, a psychological impairment, or a pre-existing condition that would remove her from the MIG.
Furthermore, the applicant did not meet the Heath test to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.
The application for benefits was dismissed.