Dr. Garner

The parties settled a personal injury action on the first day of trial after the plaintiff accepted the defendants' offer to settle for $150,000 plus costs to be agreed or assessed.

The defendants brought a motion arguing the plaintiff was only entitled to costs up to the date the offer was served, relying on previous case law.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the plain language of the offer and the Rules of Civil Procedure entitled the plaintiff to partial indemnity costs up to the date the offer was accepted.

The court referred the assessment of costs to an assessment officer and allowed the plaintiff's expert disbursements.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury trial where the defendant was found 100% at fault and the jury awarded $1,053 for general damages and $38,500 for past wage loss, the defendants brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff did not suffer a permanent serious impairment.

The trial judge granted the threshold motion, finding the plaintiff's evidence lacked credibility and was undermined by surveillance footage and medical records showing significant pre-existing chronic pain and narcotic use.

The court concluded the low-impact collision did not materially contribute to a diminution in her function.

The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued for non-pecuniary damages.

The trial judge found the respondent met the statutory impairment threshold but dismissed the action because the respondent did not provide corroborating evidence of his change in function from a witness other than himself, as required by s. 4.3(5) of O. Reg. 461/96.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the regulation does not preclude the injured person from providing the corroborative evidence.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the regulation requires corroboration of the physician's evidence, which can be provided by the injured person's own testimony.

The defendants moved for an order requiring the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident action to attend additional defence medical examinations by a physiatrist and a psychiatrist.

The defendants argued the plaintiff’s condition had changed and that trial fairness required further examinations because the plaintiff’s experts had examined her multiple times.

The court reviewed the governing principles under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 33.01–33.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding further defence medical examinations.

The court held that no material change in the plaintiff’s condition had been demonstrated and that the request largely amounted to an attempt to corroborate existing defence opinions.

Trial fairness did not require additional examinations, and the defendants had not provided sufficient evidentiary foundation to justify the order.

The applicant, injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The insurer requested that the applicant attend in-person multidisciplinary examinations under section 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule to assist in its determination.

The applicant refused, arguing the insurer's request was an abuse of process because it had previously denied funding for her own assessments based on flawed paper reviews.

The Arbitrator held that while the insurer's handling of the file raised concerns, it was not seeking the assessments for the dominant purpose of litigation.

Applying the Ramalingam factors, the Arbitrator found the insurer was entitled to conduct two or more in-person assessments to respond to the applicant's new medical information.