Robert J. Reynolds

The appellant physician appealed the refusal to replace the future care and gross-up components of a personal injury judgment with periodic payments under s. 116 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal held that where a plaintiff seeks gross-up, periodic payments are presumptively required unless the plaintiff shows they are not in the plaintiff's best interests, having regard to all the circumstances.

The trial judge properly treated the inquiry globally, accepted that the plaintiff's financial plan need not be confined to future care spending, and was entitled to consider the lack of a guarantee period, the structure's inflexibility, and concerns about prosthetic innovation and medical-cost inflation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

These companion appeals concerned the governing choice of law rule for interprovincial tort claims arising from motor vehicle accidents.

The Court held that the general rule in tort is lex loci delicti, not lex fori, emphasizing territoriality, certainty, predictability, constitutional coherence, and the need to reduce forum shopping.

In the British Columbia action, Saskatchewan substantive law governed, including its limitation period, which the Court characterized as substantive.

In the Ontario action, Quebec's no-fault statutory scheme applied to the bodily injury claims and barred the action and cross-claim.

The Court overruled prior authority adopting the forum law approach.

The Crown appealed acquittals entered by the provincial appellate court after a trial judge had convicted the accused of sexual offences against three young girls.

The Supreme Court held that under s. 686(1)(a)(i) an appellate court may re-examine and to some extent reweigh the evidence, including credibility-based findings, but must show substantial deference to the trial judge's assessment.

The Court further held that children's evidence is not inherently unreliable and should not be assessed through rigid adult credibility stereotypes or assumptions about how victims of sexual abuse ought to behave.

The appellate court erred by overstating inconsistencies, discounting supporting evidence, and relying on outdated views about corroboration and complaint.

The appeal was allowed and the convictions were restored.