Following a jury trial in a motor vehicle accident action, the defendants brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5(5)(b) of the Insurance Act arguing that the plaintiff had failed to establish a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.
The plaintiff presented testimony from himself, family members, and an occupational therapist but called no physician to provide medical evidence.
The court held that Ontario Regulation 461/96 requires evidence from a qualified physician addressing the nature, permanence, and seriousness of the impairment.
Lay testimony may only corroborate, not replace, the required medical evidence.
Because no physician’s evidence was adduced, the statutory threshold was not met and the plaintiff’s claim for non‑pecuniary damages was barred.
