Fabio Longo

The appellant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The central issue was the correct interpretation of the test for post-104-week IRBs under section 6(2)(b) of the Schedule.

The appellant argued that the test requires consideration of employment in a competitive, real-world setting comparable in nature, status, and remuneration to the insured's former employment.

The respondent insurer argued that the statutory test does not include such requirements.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts' decisions, holding that while factors such as competitive real-world setting, status, and remuneration are relevant considerations in the evidence-based analysis, they are not stand-alone requirements of the test.

The appellant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience, particularly given evidence that wedding planning remained a viable option.

This endorsement addresses the defendants' arguments that the plaintiff should be unable to call expert witnesses at trial due to late delivery of expert reports, in non-compliance with Rule 53.03(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The pretrial judge varied an existing timetable and abridged the time for the plaintiff's expert reports under Rule 53.03(4), allowing their admission despite the delays.

The court found no real prejudice to the defendants that could not be compensated by costs, emphasizing that a pretrial judge's discretion under Rule 53.03(4) is not as strictly bound by the "reasonable explanation" criterion as a trial judge's discretion under Rule 53.08(1).