The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in a 2010 motor vehicle accident.
Following a jury trial, the trial judge ruled on the questions to be put to the jury and the defendants' threshold motion.
The judge declined to put questions on future health care costs and loss of competitive advantage to the jury due to insufficient evidence and risk of double recovery.
On the threshold motion, the judge held that a psychologist does not qualify as a 'physician' under s. 4.3 of O. Reg. 461/96.
Furthermore, the judge found that the plaintiff failed to prove she sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function, noting her successful return to school and employment.
The defendants' motion to dismiss the claim for non-pecuniary damages was granted.
