W. Danial Newton

The defendant brought a motion during a jury trial for a ruling that the plaintiff's claims for future care costs and non-pecuniary damages were barred by the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The plaintiff suffered a whiplash injury in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and subsequently developed chronic pain.

The defendant argued the plaintiff was malingering and exaggerating her symptoms for financial gain.

The trial judge dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff credible and concluding she suffered a serious permanent impairment due to chronic pain caused by the accident, despite the jury ultimately awarding only $10,000 for general damages and $14,521.21 for past loss of income.

Following a jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendant brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff's claims for non-pecuniary damages and future care costs were barred under s. 267.5 of the Insurance Act.

The court reviewed extensive expert medical evidence regarding the plaintiff's chronic pain.

Despite the lack of objective findings and the jury's low damage award, the trial judge found the plaintiff credible and concluded she suffered from chronic pain caused by the accident, meeting the threshold of a serious permanent impairment.

The defendant's motion was dismissed, and judgment was entered in accordance with the jury's verdict.

The respondents contracted with the appellants to build a new home and with third parties for stucco finishing.

After experiencing water leaks, the respondents sued the appellants for negligence and breach of contract.

The appellants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the two-year limitation period.

The motions judge dismissed the motion, finding the respondents did not have sufficient knowledge of which party was responsible until they received expert reports.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that certainty of a defendant's responsibility is not required to trigger the limitation period, and expert opinions are not always necessary.

The action was statute-barred.