Jennifer Marquis

The defendant brought two motions in anticipation of trial: one to declare the plaintiff's documentary evidence inadmissible hearsay, and another to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for general damages and healthcare expenses due to failure to meet the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court adjourned the hearsay motion to the trial judge, deeming it premature for a blanket ruling.

However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the damages and healthcare claims, as the self-represented plaintiff failed to adduce the required medical evidence from a physician to prove the injuries met the statutory threshold, as mandated by O. Reg 381/03.

The defendants, having successfully defended a substantial damages claim at trial, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis totaling $244,893.47.

The plaintiff disputed the quantum, arguing the fees were inflated, disbursements non-recoverable, and the amount exceeded reasonable expectations, proposing $100,000.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, found the defendants' claim overinflated due to excessive hours, duplication of effort, time dedicated to training, and inadequate billing particulars.

The plaintiff's expectation of paying only $100,000 was deemed unreasonable given the trial's length and complexity.

The court fixed costs at $145,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, finding this amount fair and just in all circumstances.

The plaintiff brought a motion to exclude the defendant's testimony at trial or, alternatively, for a jury instruction regarding improper inferences.

The plaintiff raised concerns about photographs of vehicle damage and alleged racial bias in jury selection and defence strategy.

The court dismissed the motion to exclude the defendant's testimony, finding it relevant to causation and damages.

However, the court excluded the vehicle photographs due to lack of probative value (cropped images).

The court also addressed the racial bias concerns, finding no evidentiary basis for exclusion of testimony on that ground, but affirmed the importance of jury instructions on cultural backgrounds and cautioned against prohibited reasoning regarding accident impact and injury severity.