J. Palmer

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that awarded zero net damages following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by excluding her proposed medical expert, a neurologist, and by refusing to leave the issues of loss of competitive advantage and medical expenses to the jury.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's exercise of her gatekeeper function to exclude the expert for lacking objectivity, nor in her conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to put the disputed damages questions to the jury.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

After multiple pre-hearings and rescinded settlement offers, the applicant withdrew her application on the third day of the arbitration hearing, contingent on a $10,000 settlement.

The applicant subsequently rescinded the settlement.

The insurer sought its expenses for defending the application.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's constant rescissions demonstrated an abuse of the dispute resolution process.

The arbitrator permitted the withdrawal of the application and ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's reasonable expenses of $20,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements.