Yasar Saffie

The plaintiff sought to put several questions regarding pecuniary damages (past loss of income, future loss of income, future cost of care, housekeeping/home maintenance, and loss of competitive advantage) to the jury.

The court ruled that there was insufficient "reasonable evidence" to support these questions, as the plaintiff's evidence was too speculative, lacked specificity, and did not adequately account for contingencies or causation, especially given subsequent accidents.

Consequently, the judge dismissed the plaintiff's request to put these questions to the jury.

The defendant brought a threshold motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary damages under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act, arguing her injuries did not meet the "permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function" threshold.

Despite a jury finding the plaintiff 60% liable and the defendant 40% liable, and awarding $40,000 in non-pecuniary damages, the court granted the defendant's motion.

The court found the plaintiff's expert medical evidence unreliable due to incomplete and inaccurate information provided by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's own credibility was significantly undermined by inconsistencies regarding her injuries, activities, and financial situation.

Consequently, the plaintiff failed to establish that her injuries met the statutory threshold, and her claim for general damages was dismissed as statute-barred.

The defendant brought a motion for a mistrial following the plaintiff's opening address to the jury.

The court found that the plaintiff's opening address contained inflammatory remarks, appeals to emotion, personal opinions, misstatements of fact, and improper references to the defendant's eye condition and the defendant's insurer.

The court determined that the cumulative effect of these improprieties created a real danger of prejudice and a miscarriage of justice, which could not be cured by jury instructions without negatively impacting the jury's perception of counsel and the plaintiff.

Consequently, the motion for a mistrial was granted.

The defendant Aviva General Insurance Company brought a motion seeking to amend its Statement of Defence and compel the plaintiffs, Johanna Van Dijk-Alac and John Alac, to attend various defence medical examinations.

The plaintiffs claimed psychiatric, neuropsychological, and physical injuries from a motor vehicle accident, and Mr. Alac claimed for lost guidance, care, and companionship.

The court granted Aviva leave to amend its Statement of Defence.

It ordered Ms. Van Dijk-Alac to attend psychiatric and neuropsychological examinations, and Mr. Alac to be available to the psychiatrist for collateral information, but denied Aviva the discretion to unilaterally change experts or pre-determine the number of examination sessions.

The court also denied Aviva's request to be relieved of its obligation to serve expert reports prior to the pre-trial.

The plaintiff pedestrian was struck and severely injured by a stolen motor vehicle.

Her spouse was employed as a delivery driver and had a company van available for his regular use during business hours.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to determine whether the employer's automobile insurance policy, which included an OPCF 44R Family Protection Change Form, provided excess coverage for the injuries.

The court found that because the employer's shop was open and the van was available for the spouse's use at the time of the accident, the policy provided coverage, even though the spouse was not yet at work or using the vehicle when the accident occurred.