Michael William Chadwick

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's motor vehicle accident claim, arguing it was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to meet their evidentiary burden to establish there was no serious issue requiring a trial regarding the discoverability of the claim, specifically whether the plaintiff's injuries met the "threshold" for non-pecuniary damages within the limitation period.

The court also found that the matter was not suitable for resolution using expanded summary judgment powers due to overlapping evidence with the merits of the claim.

Following a jury verdict awarding damages for personal injury arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court addressed entitlement to costs in light of competing Rule 49 settlement offers.

The jury awarded $60,000 in total damages, including $15,000 for general damages and $45,000 for future loss of income or competitive advantage.

The court considered whether prejudgment interest should be notionally applied to the general damages award when comparing the verdict to the defendant’s settlement offer for Rule 49 purposes, particularly given the statutory deduction under the Insurance Act.

The court held that statutory deductions are ignored when determining entitlement to costs and that prejudgment interest should be notionally added to the general damages.

With that calculation, the plaintiff obtained a judgment slightly more favourable than the defendant’s offer and was therefore presumptively entitled to costs.