The plaintiff sought damages arising from a motor vehicle accident in which liability was admitted, leaving damages to be determined by a jury.
After the jury awarded modest damages, the defendants brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act arguing the plaintiff had not proven a permanent serious impairment of an important function.
The court reviewed medical and psychological evidence and assessed the plaintiff’s credibility, noting significant inconsistencies, surveillance evidence contradicting reported limitations, and unreliable self-reports relied upon by experts.
Accepting the defence expert evidence and rejecting the plaintiff’s subjective complaints, the court held the plaintiff failed to establish that his injuries met the statutory threshold.
The defendants’ motion was granted and the action dismissed.