Dr. Tamara Biederman

The plaintiffs, a mother and son, were injured in a low-speed motor vehicle accident.

The son claimed the accident caused chronic pain syndrome and depression, disabling him from his employment as a security technician.

The mother claimed the accident caused a left shoulder impairment that prevented her from performing housekeeping and self-care.

The court found both plaintiffs met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act, having sustained permanent serious impairments of important functions.

The court awarded damages for pain and suffering, past and future income loss, future care, and housekeeping/attendant care.

The plaintiff sued a newspaper publisher after it published her real name despite a Criminal Code publication ban protecting the identity of complainants and witnesses in a sexual assault retrial.

The court held that breach of the order did not create automatic civil liability, but the publisher owed a duty of care in negligence because the order created sufficient proximity and the risk of physical or psychological harm from disclosure was foreseeable.

Applying the standard of a reasonably prudent reporter, the court found the newspaper failed to preserve and verify the scope of the order before reporting.

The plaintiff proved serious and prolonged psychological injury, including a social anxiety disorder, caused in fact and in law by the breach, but failed to prove future care costs or entitlement to punitive damages.

Judgment was granted against the corporate defendant for $40,000 plus interest, and the action was dismissed against the individual reporter.

The plaintiff, a witness in a sexual assault re-trial, sued a newspaper and its reporter for negligence after her identity was published in breach of a court-ordered publication ban.

The court found that while breach of a publication ban does not automatically result in civil liability, the newspaper owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.

The reporter breached the standard of care of a reasonably prudent journalist by failing to verify the scope of the publication ban.

The court concluded that the publication caused the plaintiff to suffer compensable psychological injury, including social anxiety disorder and agoraphobia, and awarded $40,000 in general damages against the newspaper.

The action against the reporter personally was dismissed on consent.