Dr. J. Zeldin

The plaintiffs appealed a jury award of $750 in damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The central issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in his charge to the jury by failing to instruct them that the defendant bears the onus of proving the plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages.

The Divisional Court found that the omission was a significant error on a critical legal issue that left the jury with a misapprehension of the applicable legal principles.

Concluding that the error caused a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the issue of damages.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them.

The applicant sought ongoing benefits, while the insurer claimed repayment of all benefits paid, alleging wilful misrepresentation of her pre-accident medical history.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had a significant, undisclosed pre-accident history of chronic back pain and lacked credibility.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant's ongoing disability was not caused by the accident, dismissing the claim for ongoing benefits.

However, the arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay a shortfall in the benefits already paid, as the applicant had a reasonable explanation for initially failing to disclose a second job.

The insurer's claim for repayment due to wilful misrepresentation was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them, arguing she was no longer disabled.

The applicant sought further income replacement benefits and payment for medical and rehabilitation expenses.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was not substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment, noting her refusal to attempt a return to work and relying on the opinions of her treating physician and psychologist.

The claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed.

However, the arbitrator allowed the claim for medical and rehabilitation expenses, finding the treatments reasonable and beneficial.

The applicant was injured in a minor rear-end motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them.

The applicant sought arbitration, claiming ongoing disability due to neck, shoulder, and back pain.

The arbitrator reviewed medical evidence and surveillance videotape showing the applicant performing physical tasks without apparent difficulty.

Finding the applicant's testimony evasive and lacking objective medical corroboration, the arbitrator concluded the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.

The claim for ongoing weekly benefits was dismissed.