Dr. Rajka Soric

Following a two-week jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision, the jury awarded the plaintiff $15,000 in general damages for a minor soft tissue strain.

The trial judge was required to determine whether the plaintiff met the statutory threshold under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court found that while the plaintiff suffered a permanent impairment from a soft tissue injury to his left shoulder, the impairment was neither 'serious' nor 'important' as it did not substantially interfere with his employment or usual activities of daily living.

The plaintiff's claim for general damages was therefore dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a defence assessment with an occupational therapist.

The court noted a jurisdictional issue regarding whether a master has the inherent jurisdiction to order an examination by a non-health practitioner, but proceeded to hear the motion based on prior authority.

Applying the test from Ziebenhaus, the court found that the defendants already had a clear and unequivocal report from a physiatrist stating the plaintiff's injuries did not impact her ability to work or carry out normal activities.

The court concluded the requested assessment was merely to corroborate the existing report or obtain a matching report, which was insufficient.

The motion was dismissed.

Following a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff sought damages for various physical and psychological injuries.

A jury awarded the plaintiff $10,000 in general damages and dismissed her other claims.

The defendants subsequently brought a threshold motion under section 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court held that the jury's verdict should be strongly considered when deciding a threshold motion.

Finding that the plaintiff's current conditions were not caused by the accident and agreeing with the jury's implicit finding of only minor and transitory injuries, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the action.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's 15-year-old personal injury action for delay and breach of court orders, primarily stemming from the plaintiff's failure to complete defence medical examinations.

The plaintiff, who had been self-represented for a significant period, refused to be examined by male doctors due to severe anxiety and later had conflicts with female examining doctors.

The court found the delay was inordinate but excusable given the circumstances, and that the defendant suffered no actual prejudice.

The motion to dismiss was denied, but the court ordered the plaintiff to attend a defence medical examination with a female specialist under strict conditions, including audio recording, warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's 15-year-old personal injury action for delay and breach of court orders, primarily due to the plaintiff's failure to complete defence medical examinations.

The plaintiff, who had been self-represented for a significant period, refused to be examined by male doctors due to severe anxiety stemming from a past assault, and later had confrontational interactions with female examiners.

The Master found the delay was inordinate but excusable under the circumstances, and that the defendant suffered no actual prejudice.

The motion to dismiss was denied, but the Master imposed strict terms for a final defence medical examination, including that it be conducted by a female specialist and be audio recorded.