Reaume v. Unifund Assurance, 2008 ONCA 239
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
DOHERTY, GILLESE and EPSTEIN JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL REAUME
Plaintiff (Respondent)
and
UNIFUND ASSURANCE
Defendant (Appellant)
COUNSEL:
Joseph M. Dillon for the appellant
Barbara Legate and Brian Murphy for the respondent
HEARD AND ORALLY RELEASED: March 27, 2008
On appeal from the judgment of Justice E.R. Browne of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury, dated December 6, 2006.
ENDORSEMENT
1This is an appeal from a jury verdict. Counsel submits that the verdict is unreasonable and against the weight of the evidence. He properly acknowledges that we can interfere with the verdict only if we are satisfied that no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could have arrived at the conclusion that this jury reached. Counsel also argues that counsel for the respondent’s jury address was prejudicial and inflammatory.
2It was open to the jury based on the non-expert evidence to make the following findings:
within seconds of the accident there was an unidentified motor vehicle on the shoulder to the north of the highway at the scene of the accident;
the vehicle was facing in the wrong direction; and
the unidentified vehicle left the scene of the accident within seconds of the accident.
3Based on the expert evidence called by the respondent, the jury could conclude that Mr. Reaume’s westbound vehicle steered under control to the left and crossed into the incoming lane where it struck another vehicle.
4In our view, a jury, acting reasonably, could put these inferences together and conclude that the Reaume vehicle steered to the left into the oncoming vehicle to avoid the unidentified motor vehicle that was moving eastbound, either on the westbound lane or on the shoulder immediately adjacent to the westbound lane.
5Counsel for the respondent did make a factual error in her jury address. She put forward as a fact in evidence something that would more accurately be described as an inference that could be drawn from the evidence. We are not satisfied that this error had any effect on the ultimate result or prejudiced the appellant.
6There is no merit to the other grounds of appeal advanced in the appellant’s factum.
7The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent in the amount of $20,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.
“Doherty J.A.”
“E.E. Gillese J.A.”
“Epstein J.A.”