Robert Bowman

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding he did not suffer a 'catastrophic impairment' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant argued the tribunal applied the wrong legal test and violated procedural fairness in assessing his functional impairments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the tribunal applied the correct legal standards and the appellant's arguments were impermissible attempts to re-weigh factual evidence on an appeal limited to questions of law.

This appeal arose from a civil jury trial concerning a collision between a motorist and a pedestrian, Jasmine Jarvis, who suffered severe brain injuries.

The jury at trial found the motorist not liable.

The appellants (plaintiffs) appealed, arguing the trial was unfair due to the admission of irrelevant and prejudicial bad character evidence (Ms. Jarvis fleeing a taxi without paying fare) and inflammatory remarks by respondent counsel.

The Court of Appeal found the taxi fare evidence inadmissible and its prejudicial impact outweighed its probative value.

The court also found respondent counsel's jury address inflammatory and the trial judge's instructions inadequate to cure the prejudice.

The appeal was allowed, the cross-appeal (on costs) was dismissed, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's finding that he had entered into a binding settlement agreement with the respondents.

The appellant argued that his disability rendered him incapable of entering into the agreement and that he had subsequently repudiated it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the appellant had a full and complete understanding of the agreement and that the respondents did not accept his repudiation.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for leave to appeal an order requiring it to pay six months of statutory accident benefits as a lump sum and ongoing weekly payments as a term of adjourning the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief.

The Divisional Court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's order, noting that such payments can be ordered to respond to the impact of an adjournment or as part of the insurer's duty of utmost good faith.

The court held that the scale of the payment was not a matter of general importance and refused leave to appeal.