R. Shawn Stringer

The plaintiff, Norman Ramcharran, brought an action for damages following a hit-and-run collision.

A jury awarded general damages, past loss of income, and future loss of income.

The defendant insurer, State Farm, brought a post-trial motion arguing the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory verbal threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court applied the three-part test from Malfara v. Vukojevic, finding the plaintiff's permanent physical impairment (right elbow pain and weakness) was important and serious, thus meeting the threshold.

The court also addressed OPCF 44R Family Protection Endorsement coverage, ruling that physical evidence (vehicle damage photos) sufficiently corroborated the involvement of an unidentified vehicle.

Finally, on costs, the court determined that the plaintiff's April 13, 2023, offer to settle, despite a subsequent lower offer, remained valid for Rule 49 costs consequences, and fixed costs and disbursements in favour of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice due to substantial delays in scheduling civil jury trials caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The action, arising from a 2006 motor vehicle accident, had been set down for trial since 2015.

The court granted the motion, finding that the anticipated delay of at least three more years for a jury trial constituted prejudice and that justice to the parties would be better served by proceeding with a judge-alone trial.

The Statutory Third Party sought costs thrown away after a trial was adjourned due to the late delivery of expert reports.

The court found that both parties failed to agree to a schedule for expert reports as required by Rule 53.03(2.2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

However, the plaintiff's late delivery of reports ultimately necessitated the adjournment.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $2,900 in costs thrown away to the Statutory Third Party.

The plaintiffs sought damages arising from a motor vehicle accident caused by an impaired driver, which resulted in the death of their infant son and injuries to the mother and two other sons.

Liability was admitted, and the trial proceeded as an assessment of damages.

The court found that the mother's physical and psychological injuries, as well as the psychological injuries of the two surviving sons, met the threshold for permanent serious impairment under the Insurance Act.

The court awarded non-pecuniary damages, past and future income loss, and Family Law Act damages for loss of care, guidance, and companionship.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict finding him negligent in a motor vehicle collision.

The collision occurred when a vehicle travelling eastbound was struck from behind, causing it to spin, flip, and cross into the westbound lane where the appellant's vehicle collided with it.

The respondents had settled their claim against the driver of the first vehicle and had settled damages with the appellant, leaving only the issue of negligence for the jury.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: that the jury held him to a standard of perfection, that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the "range of vision" standard, and that the trial judge failed to adequately address improper closing submissions by respondents' counsel that appealed to sympathy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the jury verdict.

The plaintiff was injured in a single-vehicle accident involving his own vehicle and sought to amend his statement of claim to assert a claim against his own automobile insurer under the OPCF 44R family protection endorsement.

He alleged that an unlicenced acquaintance was driving the vehicle at the time.

The motion judge dismissed the motion on the basis that the claim was not tenable in law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that while the motion judge erred in her interpretation of the endorsement, the proposed claim was ultimately untenable in any of the possible factual scenarios.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to add his insurer as a defendant under the OPCF 44R Family Protection Endorsement, alleging that the tortfeasor was an inadequately insured motorist.

The insurer opposed the motion, arguing that the proposed claim was not legally tenable and was barred by limitation periods.

The court held that, on the undisputed insurance limits and facts alleged, the definition of “inadequately insured motorist” in the endorsement could not be met whether the plaintiff or the other driver was found to be operating the vehicle.

Because the proposed amendment could not succeed in law, allowing it would create non-compensable prejudice.

The motion to amend the statement of claim was therefore dismissed.