Court File and Parties

CITATION: Tremblay v. Deelstra, 2009 ONCA 539

DATE: 20090703

DOCKET: C48478

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Sharpe, Lang and LaForme JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Leon Tremblay

Plaintiff (Respondent)

and

Raylene Deelstra and Sharon Deelstra

Defendants (Appellants)

Counsel:

Harold S. Ginn, for the appellants

C. Beckett and T.A. Haddy, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: June 26, 2006

On appeal from the judgment of Justice W.U. Tausendfreund of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury, dated February 11, 2008.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] We are not persuaded that the jury’s damages award was so plainly unreasonable and unjust that no jury reviewing the evidence as a whole and acting judicially could have reached it. See McCannell v. McLean, 1937 1 (SCC), [1937] S.C.R. 341 (S.C.C.); Marcoccia (Litigation guardian of) v. Ford Credit Canada Ltd., 2009 ONCA 317, [2009] O.J. No. 1548 (Ont. C.A.).

[2] While the award of $250,000 for general damages was certainly very generous, there was a basis for it in the evidence. Before the accident, the respondent worked and led an active social life and generally enjoyed his life. There was evidence before the jury about the devastating impact the injuries sustained in the accident had on the respondent. He was unable to return to work resulting in severe financial hardship and bankruptcy. His injuries led to the breakdown of his marriage. He became a social recluse. He felt like, as he described it, “a charity case”. The impact of the injuries he sustained in the accident was described by other witnesses who knew him well as having ruined his life and having turned him from a happy-go-lucky individual into a miserable old man.

[3] The trial judge did not err in declining to instruct the jury as to the cap on general damages. This was not a case where the trial judge did or should have anticipated an award in excess of the cap.

[4] We also reject the submission that the award for future loss of income should be reduced. Although the respondent was 61 years old at the time of the accident, there was evidence that he planned to work beyond 65 and that he was capable of doing so.

[5] As we see no error on the part of the trial judge and as we do not accept the submission that the damages were plainly unreasonable and unjust, there is no basis for us to interfere pursuant to s. 119 of the Courts of Justice Act.

[6] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent fixed at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T.

“Robert J. Sharpe J.A.”

“S.E. Lang J.A.”

“H.S. LaForme J.A.”