Dr. Ogilvie-Harris

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that declined to order a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 for the respondent's alleged unreasonable withholding of Income Replacement Benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues raised regarding the adjudicator's assessment of expert evidence and the respondent's conduct were questions of fact or mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law.

The court concluded there was ample evidence to support the adjudicator's factual findings.

The defendant brought a motion under section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 33.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to compel the plaintiff to attend a fourth defence medical examination, this time with a physiatrist.

The plaintiff had already attended examinations with an orthopaedic surgeon, a psychiatrist, and a neurologist.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant's orthopaedic surgeon had already provided extensive commentary and rebuttal to the plaintiff's physiatrist's report, and the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence explaining why a further examination by a physiatrist was necessary to ensure trial fairness.

The plaintiff suffered a severe quadriceps rupture after slipping and falling on a poorly lit, defectively designed stairway at a Sandals resort in Saint Lucia.

The court applied Saint Lucian law to determine liability, finding the resort breached its duty of care as an occupier.

The plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for descending the stairs in the dark.

Applying Ontario law for the quantification of damages, the court awarded general damages, future care costs, and special damages, rejecting the defendants' arguments that the plaintiff's pre-existing osteoarthritis or a subsequent re-injury broke the chain of causation.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict awarding $55,000 in damages following a motor vehicle accident, arguing the assessment was inconsistent, unreasonable, and out of proportion to the injuries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no obvious inconsistency in the jury's findings.

The court held that the verdict was reasonable, as the jury was entitled to assess the plaintiff's credibility and prefer the evidence of the respondent's medical expert over the appellants' expert.

The defendant estate brought a motion to limit the plaintiff to calling three expert witnesses at the upcoming personal injury trial, arguing there was considerable duplication among the proposed five experts.

The court reviewed the proposed experts and found that the functional ability assessment by one expert duplicated the range of motion testing in the in-home assessment by another.

The court permitted the plaintiff to call four experts (an orthopaedic surgeon, a future care costs evaluator, an in-home assessor, and a vocational evaluator) but excluded the functional ability expert.

The court also raised concerns about the admissibility of proposed psychiatric evidence regarding a defendant's mental capacity under the Mohan framework and requested written submissions before ruling on that issue.

Following a jury trial where the plaintiff was awarded $62,500 in general damages for injuries sustained in a rear-end motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court reviewed the medical evidence and surveillance footage, noting inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony and evidence of her ability to perform daily activities.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove her injuries substantially interfered with her usual activities of daily living.

The defendants' motion was granted, barring the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss.

The plaintiff in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident brought a preliminary motion to exclude photographs of vehicle damage at trial.

The plaintiff argued the photographs were irrelevant since liability was admitted, and that admitting them without expert biomechanical evidence would invite unguided speculation by the jury that minor vehicle damage equates to minor injury.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the photographs were relevant to causation and admissible without expert evidence, as causation is a matter of common sense.

The court noted that a jury instruction would be given to clarify that serious injuries can still result from low-impact collisions.

The plaintiffs sought damages arising from a motor vehicle accident caused by an impaired driver, which resulted in the death of their infant son and injuries to the mother and two other sons.

Liability was admitted, and the trial proceeded as an assessment of damages.

The court found that the mother's physical and psychological injuries, as well as the psychological injuries of the two surviving sons, met the threshold for permanent serious impairment under the Insurance Act.

The court awarded non-pecuniary damages, past and future income loss, and Family Law Act damages for loss of care, guidance, and companionship.

The plaintiff sued the City of Hamilton for injuries sustained after falling into a ravine in a wooded area of a city park at night.

The court held that the lower standard of care under s. 4(1) of the Occupiers' Liability Act applied because the plaintiff was engaged in a recreational activity and had wandered off a marked recreational trail.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the City did not act with reckless disregard for the plaintiff's safety, as it had no prior knowledge of the danger and the natural hazards were obvious.

Damages were assessed provisionally.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiffs were awarded $137,000 plus interest, the court determined costs.

The plaintiffs' recovery exceeded the defendant's offer to settle of $125,000.

The court found the plaintiffs were the successful parties and awarded them partial indemnity costs.

After reducing fees for duplication and disallowing disbursements for experts who did not testify, the court awarded the plaintiffs $322,500 in costs.

The defendant brought a threshold motion during jury deliberations in a motor vehicle personal injury action, seeking a declaration that the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory threshold under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The plaintiff claimed to suffer from chronic pain syndrome resulting from a minor rear-end collision.

The court preferred the evidence of the defendant's medical expert and relied heavily on video surveillance showing the plaintiff engaging in vigorous physical activities inconsistent with her claimed limitations.

The court found the plaintiff failed to prove a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical function.

Consequently, the jury's award of $50,000 for general damages was disallowed, and judgment was entered only for the $32,000 awarded for past loss of housekeeping services.

The appellant was awarded $20,000 in general damages by a jury in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The trial judge deprived the appellant of costs under Rule 76.13, finding it was unreasonable to proceed outside the simplified procedure regime.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's costs ruling could not be reconciled with his pre-verdict assessment of the case, including his jury instruction suggesting a range up to $75,000 and his dismissal of the respondents' threshold motion.

The appellant was awarded costs of the action and the appeal.

The appellant, a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle, suffered severe injuries resulting in lymphedema.

At trial, liability was admitted, and a jury awarded her $290,000 in non-pecuniary damages, $30,000 for past income loss, and $43,300 under the Family Law Act, but zero for future income loss.

The appellant appealed the zero award for future income loss, arguing it was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury's verdict was supported by evidence of the appellant's successful employment and promotions post-accident, and that the jury was entitled to reject the appellant's expert evidence regarding her future loss of competitive advantage.