Mr. Walton

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order to compel the plaintiff to attend three defence medical assessments and for leave to serve defence expert reports late, after failing to comply with the timelines mandated by Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to provide a "reasonable explanation" for their non-compliance, as required by Rule 53.08.

The court emphasized that administrative failures or inattentiveness by counsel or staff do not constitute a reasonable explanation for such delays.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and its $3,500 funding limit.

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments that warranted removal from the MIG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving her injuries fell outside the MIG, noting inconsistencies in the medical evidence and a failure to meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain.

The application for medical benefits, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

Following a jury verdict awarding modest damages in a motor vehicle accident action, the defendant brought a post-verdict threshold motion seeking a declaration that the plaintiff’s claim for non‑pecuniary damages was barred under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court applied the three-part test from Meyer v. Bright to determine whether the plaintiff sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.

Despite the minor impact of the final collision and the jury’s minimal damages award, the court found credible medical and vocational evidence that the accident exacerbated existing conditions, resulting in chronic pain syndrome and functional incapacity preventing gainful employment.

The court held that the plaintiff met the statutory threshold and the defendant remained liable for non‑pecuniary damages.