Tom David

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court order declaring that the parties had not settled the underlying action for non-payment of furnace equipment.

The appellant argued the Deputy Judge erred in finding there was no meeting of the minds regarding the settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding an evidentiary basis for the Deputy Judge's conclusion that the parties had not agreed on a material term regarding the timing of payment and receipt of documents.

The court also found the Deputy Judge's brief reasons were adequate for the Small Claims Court context.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his civil action relating to a motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury trial where damages were assessed at $34,000, the trial judge ruled that the plaintiff failed to meet the threshold under s. 266(1)(b) of the Insurance Act and dismissed the action.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued the trial judge erred in his jury charge, in relying on the jury's findings for the threshold issue, and in finding the threshold was not met.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the jury charge, confirming a judge may consider the jury verdict on the threshold issue, and agreeing the plaintiff did not meet the onus to establish a permanent serious impairment.

The appellant appealed a judgment dismissing his personal injury action following a jury verdict.

The jury found that the motor vehicle accident did not cause or materially contribute to any of the appellant's injuries, despite assessing damages at $25,000 for pain and suffering.

The appellant argued the verdict was perverse and that the trial judge erred in evidentiary rulings regarding expert witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury's verdict was reasonable given the central issue of the appellant's credibility and the defendants' position at trial.

The court also found no reversible error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings.