Giovanna Toscano Roccamo

Following a jury verdict awarding damages for catastrophic injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, the court addressed outstanding issues concerning prejudgment interest, the retrospective application of amendments to the Insurance Act, the assignment and trust of collateral accident benefits, and costs.

The court held that the amendment removing the 5% prejudgment interest rate for non‑pecuniary damages in motor vehicle cases was substantive and therefore did not apply retrospectively.

Prejudgment interest on non‑pecuniary damages was awarded at 5% pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also considered the statutory trust and assignment provisions governing future accident benefits and provided directions regarding potential assignments of benefits and further submissions.

Costs were to be determined following additional written submissions.

The Crown sought to qualify a police detective as an expert witness on drug trafficking indicators in a prosecution for possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The proposed opinion evidence addressed crack cocaine consumption patterns, typical quantities held by users, and the absence of consumption tools as indicative of trafficking.

The court applied the Mohan criteria and subsequent guidance from appellate jurisprudence, including Sekhon, emphasizing the trial judge’s gatekeeping role regarding expert evidence.

The court held the proposed opinions were largely anecdotal, insufficiently grounded in specialized expertise, and not necessary to assist the trier of fact.

Given the modest quantity of drugs seized and the proximity of the opinion to the ultimate issue of intent, the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value and the evidence was excluded.

The defendant physicians brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a medical negligence action arising from complications following bowel surgery and epidural analgesia.

The plaintiff alleged failures in diagnosis and treatment of an epidural catheter infection, failure to obtain informed consent, and related causation issues after developing an epidural abscess requiring additional surgery.

Applying the “full appreciation test” for summary judgment from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court held that the voluminous evidentiary record, conflicting expert evidence, and credibility issues required a trial for most allegations.

However, certain claims were dismissed: allegations relating to the surgeon’s performance of the initial surgery lacked supporting expert evidence, and claims against one physician based on a novel duty of care as a member of the Acute Pain Service failed to disclose a prima facie duty of care.

The remaining negligence, informed consent, limitation, and causation issues were ordered to proceed to trial.