Ian Little

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against his own motor vehicle liability insurer for uninsured or unidentified automobile coverage.

The appellant was struck from behind in a motor vehicle accident and argued that if the jury found neither of the two identified drivers liable at trial, he should be able to recover under the uninsured/unidentified automobile coverage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that there was no unidentified automobile involved in the accident and that the sole question at trial would be which, if either, of the two known vehicles or drivers was legally responsible.

Following a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident where liability had been admitted, the plaintiff recovered damages of $280,525.60.

The parties disputed entitlement to costs in light of competing offers to settle under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the defendant’s offer to settle for $375,000 complied with Rule 49 and triggered the usual cost consequences because the plaintiff obtained a judgment lower than the offer.

The plaintiff was therefore entitled to partial indemnity costs only up to the date of the defendant’s offer, while the defendant was entitled to partial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court reduced both parties’ claimed fees and disbursements as excessive and fixed costs at equivalent amounts, resulting in a full set‑off.

During a jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff sought to qualify a chiropractor as an expert to testify about an in‑home functional assessment.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine whether the proposed testimony satisfied the admissibility criteria for expert evidence under R. v. Mohan.

The judge found the proposed opinion exceeded the witness’s professional expertise, overlapped with evidence already provided by more qualified medical experts, and largely repeated the plaintiff’s own testimony.

Because the proposed evidence lacked necessity and probative value, the witness was not qualified as an expert.

The ruling emphasizes the trial judge’s gatekeeping role in scrutinizing expert evidence and preventing unnecessary or duplicative expert testimony.