Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-05-293169 DATE: 2020-03-02 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: DONNA E. SPICER, Plaintiff AND: CAA INSURANCE COMPANY (ONTARIO), Defendant

BEFORE: Sossin J.

COUNSEL: Donna Spicer, for herself James S. Schacter, Counsel for the Defendant

HEARD: November 18 – December 13, 2019

Reasons for Judgment

[1] The issue in this trial is whether an insurance company is liable to a claimant who alleges she has been mistreated over the course of several claims for damage to her car.

Overview & Procedural Background

[2] The plaintiff, Donna Spicer (“Ms. Spicer”), is trained as a graphic designer and lives in Toronto.

[3] The defendant, CAA Insurance Company (Ontario) (“CAA”), is an insurance company carrying on business in Ontario.

[4] On July 13, 2005, Ms. Spicer issued a statement of claim, seeking $2.5 million in damages for “Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation, Bad Faith, Willful Misconduct, Personal Injury and Negligence in Breach of Fiduciary Duty in compliance with Contract of Insurance,” and $500,000 in damages for “intimidation and physical injury causing emotional anguish and mental distress and devastating loss and harm.”

[5] On February 2, 2007, CAA delivered its statement of defence, denying liability and disputing many of the facts alleged by Ms. Spicer.

[6] The parties had several contested interlocutory motions at various stages of the litigation.

[7] Orders were granted and revised in 2011 by Master Sproat (now Master Jean) providing for a timeline for the delivery of production documents.

[8] On January 6, 2012, Justice Stewart heard a motion for contempt by Ms. Spicer arising from her allegation that CAA was not complying with the orders from Master Sproat. This motion was dismissed, though the parties agreed to add a claim for spoliation of documents to Ms. Spicer’s claim. Justice Stewart also set a timeline for setting the matter down for trial by the end of February, 2012.

[9] Disputes about the scope for Ms. Spicer to amend her claim resulted in a decision by Master Hawkins (reported at 2013 ONSC 5148).

[10] In light of Master Hawkins findings, Ms. Spicer issued a fresh as amended statement of claim on August 30, 2013.

[11] On February 3, 2015, and again on January 17, 2017, Master Hawkins provided leave to Ms. Spicer to restore this action to the trial list.

[12] Ms. Spicer is representing herself.

[13] Managing the various examinations, cross-examinations, motions and arguments in a trial can be overwhelming. For Ms. Spicer, this already daunting task was made more challenging still by her health issues. While some aspects of her diagnosed conditions became a subject of some dispute at trial, it was uncontroverted that Ms. Spicer was under significant stress as a result of this litigation generally, and the trial specifically.

[14] With the consent of counsel for CAA, the Court attempted to address Ms. Spicer’s needs by shorter Court days, more frequent breaks as needed, fewer interruptions, and guidance from the Court on rules of evidence and trial procedure, as appropriate.

[15] At the outset of the trial, I granted a motion by Ms. Spicer, striking the jury notice, which in the circumstances of this trial, and in light of Ms. Spicer’s various challenges, was not opposed by CAA.

The Chronology

[16] The allegations in this trial extend over a number of years and separate claims administration. For this reason, a chronology of the relevant events involving Ms. Spicer’s car and her claims with CAA over which she claims improper conduct is important:

1991 Ms. Spicer purchased a red Pontiac Sunbird.

1993 Ms. Spicer filed a claim with CAA for damage to her car as a result of vandalism.

1997 Ms. Spicer filed a claim with CAA for damage to her car as a result of a collision.

2002 Ms. Spicer filed a claim with CAA for damage to her car arising from its theft, and ultimate recovery.

2004 Ms. Spicer filed a claim with CAA for damage to her car as a result of a collision.

Analysis

[17] The evidence in this case sheds important light on Ms. Spicer’s allegations, and whether the facts in this case constitute a breach of any legal standard, as I review below.

A Review of the Evidence

[18] Ms. Spicer testified CAA engaged in a campaign of improper conduct and harassment over many years, led by Joe Jansen, a CAA employee involved in claims administration.

[19] Ms. Spicer alleged that both while employed by CAA and subsequently, Mr. Jansen engaged in a series of attempts to gain possession and ownership of Ms. Spicer’s car.

[20] The allegations relating to claims administration extend over a period of eleven years and cover claims to CAA in 1993, 1998, 2002 and 2004. The allegations against CAA and Mr. Jansen continued after the filing of her 2004 claim and the commencement of this litigation in 2005.

[21] The allegations after 2004 extend beyond the treatment of insurance claims to the intimidation of witnesses and ongoing “stalking” behaviour.

[22] There is abundant evidence, however, which is not consistent with these allegations, including the testimony of witnesses, contemporaneous documentary evidence, and the opinion evidence of experts.

[23] Below, I review the evidence in relation to the allegations about each insurance claim which form the foundation of Ms. Spicer’s action against CAA. I also review the evidence in relation to the allegations of CAA’s conduct in the post-claim period.

The 1993 Claim

[24] In 1993, Ms. Spicer’s car was subject to vandalism. The vandalism was witnessed and resulted in an arrest and conviction of the person responsible.

[25] Ms. Spicer filed a claim with CAA for the damage to her car. She alleged that CAA improperly demanded a deductible fee of $1000.00.

[26] Her insurance policy with CAA, however, makes clear that claims of vandalism related damage were subject to a $1000.00 deductible fee.

[27] She alleged that Mr. Jansen improperly handled her claim, and further alleged that the CAA authorized repairs to her car were incomplete.

[28] Ms. Spicer made no complaint about repairs at the time the claim was closed.

[29] Mr. Jansen denied any involvement in this claim, nor is there any documentary evidence indicating his involvement.

[30] I find in these circumstances that the evidence does not support the claim that CAA breached any legal standard in its handling of the 1993 claim or treatment of Ms. Spicer.

The 1998 Claim

[31] In April, 1998, Ms. Spicer had a minor collision with a distracted driver turning left. This collision led to a claim with CAA for damage to the right rear panel of the car.

[32] In her fresh as amended claim, Ms. Spicer alleges that Mr. Jansen “wrongfully appraised the Insured’s car as a rusted out junker and demanded that the Insured accept a write off valuation by Black Book Trade Value of a base model junker.”

[33] Ms. Spicer also alleged that Mr. Jansen stated he would help an employee of Popham Pontiac Buick, where her car was being repaired, acquire her car.

[34] In his testimony, Mr. Jansen denied making any reference to Ms. Spicer’s car as a “rusted out junker” and denied being involved in any way in someone else acquiring Ms. Spicer’s car.

[35] Indeed, the evidence shows that Mr. Jansen, during the course of his assessment of the insurance claim, intervened to ensure Ms. Spicer was not responsible for the cost of paint repairs which had been conducted by a body shop in relation to an earlier claim (which is not part of this litigation). Ms. Spicer pointed out peeling paint which led Mr. Jansen to conclude that the earlier paint repairs had been improperly done.

[36] As a result of Mr. Jansen’s intervention, the paint repairs were redone, at CAA’s expense, in April, 1998.

[37] In a letter dated May 13, 1998, following Mr. Jansen’s intervention in the repair of Ms. Spicer’s car, she wrote:

Dear Mr. Jansen, Thank you for your expert assistance in correcting faulty repair work that has been done to my car in the past. Your professional intervention has made a great difference in the result.

[38] Ms. Spicer testified that this note was written under duress at the behest of Ms. Sharon Ashley, then the body shop manager of Popham Pontiac Buick, whose work was also praised in the same letter. There is no independent corroboration of this allegation, nor is it clear why Ms. Spicer would be under duress from Ms. Ashley to praise Mr. Jansen.

[39] I find it more likely that Ms. Spicer’s expression of gratitude to Ms. Jansen was genuine, and that her concerns with Mr. Jansen arose subsequently.

[40] Therefore, I find that the evidence does not support the claim that CAA breached any legal standard in its handling of the 1998 claim or treatment of Ms. Spicer.

The 2002 Claim

[41] In 2002, during the time Ms. Spicer’s car was reported stolen, Ms. Spicer had a meeting with Ms. Anne Austin, an independent claims adjuster retained by CAA to assist with Ms. Spicer’s claim. Ms. Spicer’s claimed that Ms. Austin was attempting to gain possession of her car by asking Ms. Spicer to provide ownership documentation.

[42] The evidence, including a letter from Ms. Austin to Ms. Spicer, dated April 26, 2002, demonstrates that Ms. Austin could not obtain Ms. Spicer’s cooperation in her investigation on behalf of CAA.

[43] Ms. Spicer testified that she believed Ms. Austin was attempting improperly to obtain “the ownership papers” for her car.

[44] Once again, the evidence reveals the insurance company taking appropriate steps to try to resolve Ms. Spicer’s claim.

[45] CAA’s representative, Heather Comeau, gave evidence that it was standard CAA practice to retain an independent claims adjuster in cases such as Ms. Spicer’s.

[46] The documentation Ms. Austin sought was required in order to claim the total loss of the car in the event it was not recovered.

[47] As it happens, at the same time Ms. Austin’s letter reached Ms. Spicer, her car was located by the police (it turned out that it had been recovered some time earlier and had been used in the commission of a crime). The issue of producing the documentation Ms. Austin had sought became moot.

[48] Once located, Ms. Spicer’s car was taken to the Old Mill GM Dealership for repairs, which CAA paid for pursuant to the policy.

[49] Ms. Spicer alleged that Mr. Jansen attended at Old Mill GM Dealership, and made verbal threats to her, including demanding a deductible fee, and refusing to address incomplete repairs. Ms. Spicer testified that Mr. Jansen threatened her by saying, “I make the rules. I can do whatever I want.”

[50] Once again, Mr. Jansen denies this account in all respects.

[51] The car had suffered damage to the steering column and, consistent with the terms of the policy, CAA proposed replacing the steering column with a used part. Ms. Spicer insisted on a new part.

[52] In the end, CAA made an exception to its policy, and approved the purchase of the new part for the steering column, which CAA’s representative, Ms. Comeau, described as an example of its “member-centric” approach to claims resolutions.

[53] Ms. Spicer made no complaint at the time about the handling of the 2002 claim, and the claim notes indicate that she was “happy” with the accommodation of her request for the new part.

[54] Once again, I find that the evidence does not support the claim that CAA breached any legal standard in its handling of the 2002 claim or treatment of Ms. Spicer.

The 2004 Claim

[55] In 2004, Ms. Spicer submitted a claim in relation to a collision which occurred on Boulton Avenue in Toronto on July 17, 2004.

[56] At various stages of this claims process, Ms. Spicer alleges improper conduct on the part of CAA, and specific harassment in relation to Ms. Jansen’s participation in the CAA investigation.

[57] These allegations are all denied by CAA, which relies on the contemporaneous documentation of the claim in Ms. Spicer’s file.

[58] Ms. Spicer testified that she was standing across the street with her dog when she heard the sound of the collision.

[59] Ms. Spicer gave evidence that the collision involved her car being “sandwiched,” with one car hitting her car from behind, pushing it forward into another. She alleged that this resulted both in back end and front-end damage to the car.

[60] Ms. Spicer filled out a self-reporting collision report on the day of the accident, in which the collision was described as a “rear end” impact, with light damage, and an initial estimate of damage as “$400.” The quantum of the estimate was subsequently crossed out by Ms. Spicer and replaced with “over $1000.”

Reporting the Collision and Opening the CAA Claim

[61] The initial conversation between Ms. Spicer and Mr. Norman Cheung, the CAA representative who took the initial information in order to open the claim, dated July 22, 2004, was recorded and adduced as evidence in the trial.

[62] Ms. Spicer stated that she wished to have her car repaired at her trusted body shop, Century 3000 Auto Collision (“Century 3000”).

[63] Mr. Cheung advised Ms. Spicer that the deductible amount on the policy could only be waived if she agreed to have the repair work to the car done at one of the body shops approved by CAA.

[64] Mr. Cheung also explained that the insurance coverage of the other driver was still being determined.

[65] Ms. Spicer testified that she asked specifically for Mr. Jansen not to be involved in her claim, but this request regarding Mr. Jansen is not mentioned in the recorded conversation between Ms. Spicer and Mr. Cheung, nor was it noted elsewhere on Ms. Spicer’s CAA file.

The Involvement of Mr. Jansen

[66] Mr. Jansen attended Ms. Spicer’s residence on July 26, 2004, in order to evaluate the damage to Ms. Spicer’s car.

[67] He took a number of photographs on that occasion, which were entered into evidence at trial.

[68] Ms. Spicer testified that Mr. Jensen’s photographs were taken at an unusual distance and for that reason do not show damage to the front of her car, which she testified was the result of the July, 2004 collision.

[69] The repair estimate of Century 3000 was provided to and approved by CAA on July 23, 2004. All the damage noted by Century 3000 was to the rear of Ms. Spicer’s car.

[70] CAA confirmed coverage under Ms. Spicer’s policy, approved the repairs, and waived the deductible.

[71] The body shop, Century 3000 conducted repairs to the rear of Ms. Spicer’s vehicle including an alignment to the luggage lid panel and repairs to the rear bumper. The repairs totaled $733.64.

The October 5, 2004 Water Test

[72] After Ms. Spicer picked up her car from the body shop on August 3, 2004, she testified that she noticed a musty smell and could see dampness inside the passenger side of the car.

[73] She complained immediately about the state of her car to Century 3000 who stated that this was not the result of the accident or its repairs.

[74] On September 9, 2004, Ms. Spicer brought this situation to the attention of CAA through a message to Ms. Jansen. The two spoke on September 10, 2004.

[75] On September 17, 2004, Ms. Spicer returned her car to Century 3000 to inspect the musty smell. Another CAA claims adjuster, David Caldwell, also attended Century 3000 and provided a re-inspection report which confirmed the front floor carpet of Ms. Spicer’s car was damp and produced a musty/mildew odour. He stated that the source of this dampness could not be determined without dismantling but that his view was that the water leak, if any, was unrelated to the collision.

[76] While the alleged concerns over repairs to Ms. Spicer’s car were the responsibility of Century 3000, CAA agreed to pay for a water test suggested by Century 3000 to determine the source of the musty smell in the car.

[77] The test was conducted by an independent water damage expert, Leak Pro, on October 5, 2004. Mr. Jansen attended the water test, along with Mr. Dan Zita, the manager of Century 3000.

[78] Robert Patchett of Leak Pro conducted the water test to determine the source of water entering Ms. Spicer’s car.

[79] Mr. Patchett concluded the leak was the result of a “hole the size of a fist” in the passenger-side firewall, which was the result of rust. He further testified that such damage was not uncommon in cars of the type and age of Ms. Spicer’s.

[80] Ms. Spicer claimed that during the water test, she saw Mr. Patchett “digging holes” in her car and that she and Mr. Jansen used a hammer to “break the engine wall.”

[81] Ms. Spicer testified that she saw Mr. Zita removing engine parts, soaking the car’s carpet with a “gushing water hose.”

[82] Ms. Spicer further claimed that, during the water test, Mr. Jansen “dragged” her away by the arm, knocking her to the ground.

[83] These allegations are strongly denied both by the testimony of Mr. Patchett and Mr. Jansen.

[84] In a letter dated October 8, 2004, CAA Claims Team Leader Terry Turcotte wrote to Ms. Spicer with the findings of the test:

In regards to your concern about the water damage inside your vehicle, we have had our senior appraiser as well as an independent firm, Leak Pro, go over your vehicle and it has been determined that the water is coming in through a rusted area in the front of your vehicle. This area is either a maintenance or flaw issue and does not relate to the motor vehicle accident. Therefore, as it has been deemed unrelated, we cannot entertain any claim for this issue.

[85] Ms. Spicer wrote back to Mr. Turcotte on October 8, 2004, stating that the leaks were the result of front-end damage to her car as a result of a “sandwich” collision.

[86] This appears to be the first reference to damage to the front of Ms. Spicer’s car arising from the collision giving rise to the 2004 claim.

The Pre-Litigation Dispute between Ms. Spicer and CAA

[87] Ms. Spicer initially pursued her complaint against CAA over its refusal to cover the damage to the firewall in Ms. Spicer’s car through a number of channels prior to commencing the litigation.

[88] Ms. Spicer wrote directly to Mr. Nick Parks, CAA’s President, to complain about her dispute over the 2004 claim and the “abusive treatment” she alleged suffering.

[89] She filed a complaint with the independent Ombuds for CAA, Ms. Monica Cain. On the basis of her investigation, Ms. Cain wrote to Ms. Spicer on October 22, 2004 and stated that multiple investigations into the water damage confirmed that it was not related to the July, 2004 claim, and that no further claim arising from that collision was warranted.

[90] She also complained to the Office of the Insurance Ombudsman (“OIO”) within the Financial Services Commission of Ontario. In a letter dated February 5, 2005, Ms. Lisa LoPiccolo wrote to Ms. Spicer to inform her of the conclusions of her review. She stated:

My review found that CAA Insurance Company addressed your concerns and provided a reasonable explanation for their decision. In an effort to resolve this matter, the company has agreed to enter into the appraisal process in accordance with the Act. As I indicated, the OIO cannot make an assessment of the damages or the required repairs. As such, there is no further action this office can take in this matter and we are closing our file.

[91] In the event, Ms. Spicer participated in a conference call with Troy Bourassa of CAA and Ms. LoPoccolo on July 11, 2005 and appeared interested in pursuing the appraisal process, but instead launched this action on July 13, 2005.

Post-Claim Allegations

[92] Ms. Spicer raised a number of allegations against CAA, and Mr. Jansen personally, which took place long after the insurance claim was closed in 2004. Ms. Spicer alleged that, in 2005, Mr. Jansen harassed Ms. Spicer in her car on a city street through a “pit maneuver,” that he was present in a parking garage where Ms. Spicer’s car was parked, and that he showed up unannounced at a store in which Ms. Spicer was shopping.

[93] In April, 2011, Ms. Spicer testified that Mr. Jansen approached her in a threatening way in a craft store on Yonge Street near her home, where she was shopping with a close friend, Cristina Yasakci.

[94] Ms. Yasakci gave evidence that she was in a different part of the store when the incident occurred. When she heard Ms. Spicer’s dog barking and rejoined Ms. Spicer, she saw an individual who was wearing jeans, running shoes, a baseball cap and a dark jacket. He subsequently left the store. Ms. Yasakci did not identify who this individual was, though she testified that Ms. Spicer told her the person was “Joe Jansen.”

[95] Ms. Spicer alleges these incidents were part of a campaign of “stalking” by Mr. Jansen.

[96] There is no evidence other than Ms. Spicer’s recollection that these events occurred.

[97] Ms. Spicer made a number of police reports over these years including these allegations against CAA and Mr. Jansen.

[98] In a letter dated December 9, 2016, Constable Timothy Somers provided a summary report of these reports and concluded there was no evidence to support further police investigations. Further, this report indicated that future complaints from Ms. Spicer into these activities would not be accepted. Constable Somers stated:

You have attempted to involve the Toronto Police Service on many occasions over those years. Several Police Divisions, Investigators, along with significant Police Resources have been utilized to investigate & verify your allegations.

You have been told by those many investigators, that your allegations are UNFOUNDED, & that there is nothing more that the Toronto Police Service can do for you with reference to these allegations.

By request of the Office of the Chief, I was asked to investigate these allegations once more, to give due diligence to your concerns with the CAA.

I have again determined that your allegations are exaggerated & unfounded. You consistent emails have confirmed that there is no Criminal Office committed by the CAA or any of the mentioned employees. There is absolutely no evidence to support these allegations, so I am advising you that this Police Investigation is officially closed. [Emphasis in original]

[99] Ms. Spicer also has alleged that CAA has intimidated witnesses in this litigation in an attempt to discourage them from testifying.

[100] Again, there is no evidence that this alleged conduct occurred. There is evidence that at least one witness refused to participate in the litigation over concerns about Ms. Spicer’s conduct.

[101] Based on the evidence in the record, I find that CAA did not handle Ms. Spicer’s 2004 claim improperly.

[102] I find CAA did not breach its contract with Ms. Spicer, nor did CAA make misrepresentations to CAA. I find there is no basis on which to conclude CAA acted in bad faith, or that CAA breached any duty of care or fiduciary duty that it may have owed to Ms. Spicer.

Expert Evidence Relating to Ms. Spicer’s Car

[103] Both Ms. Spicer and CAA retained experts to conduct reports on the state of Ms. Spicer’s car.

[104] Ms. Spicer retained Mr. Michael Moore as an expert appraiser who prepared a report on Ms. Spicer’s car on June 20, 2005.

[105] Mr. Moore gave testimony via Skype at the trial. Mr. Moore concluded that the damage to Ms. Spicer’s car could have been consistent with a three-car sandwich collision.

[106] Mr. Moore also concluded that the damage to the firewall could have been accident related, and that the musty smell in the car could be consistent with the water entering the car as part of the Leak Pro water test based on Ms. Spicer’s account of that test.

[107] Mr. Moore is not an engineer, however, and conceded on cross-examination that he has no training in the field of force transfer, and no information about the collision involving Ms. Spicer’s car apart from the information Ms. Spicer herself provided.

[108] Michael Jenkins, an engineer, was retained by CAA and provided an expert report, dated June 23, 2011.

[109] Mr. Jenkins concluded that the source of the water leak in Ms. Spicer’s car was a separation in a firewall seam, due to degraded sealing, poor design, age and corrosion due to water pooling in an area behind the HVAC blower fan.

[110] Jenkins testified that, in his opinion, the water leak was not the result of the 2004 or any other collision, and that there was no evidence of hammer or blunt impacts in the area around the firewall seam separation or any holes dug in the seam.

[111] Jack Martino testified on Ms. Spicer’s behalf as a body shop expert, one of the owners of the Martino Brothers Collision.

[112] Ms. Spicer brought her car to Mr. Martino so he could inspect it in February or March of 2005. He found Ms. Spicer to be well-informed and he attempted to intercede on her behalf with CAA.

[113] That said, his opinion was that the damage to the firewall in Ms. Spicer’s car was not accident related.

[114] Mr. Martino testified that he found CAA to be “a good industry partner” and Mr. Jansen to be a “straight-up, by the book” professional.

[115] Therefore, based on the expert evidence relating to Ms. Spicer’s car, I find the preponderance of evidence supports the conclusion that the 2004 collision resulted in minor rear-end damage.

[116] I accept Mr. Jenkins’ evidence that the state of Ms. Spicer’s car was not consistent with her allegations, particularly with respect to firewall damage from hammering or digging during the water test. This evidence was not challenged by any other expert.

[117] That evidence leads me to the finding that the hole in the firewall of Ms. Spicer’s car was not accident related, and that CAA was under no obligation to repair it, nor was CAA responsible for water related damage to the car as a result of the hole to the firewall.

Expert Medical Evidence

[118] The issue of whether Ms. Spicer has suffered any damage as a result of CAA’s alleged, improper conduct is disputed. Because I have found that CAA did not breach any legal standard and is not liable to Ms. Spicer, I need not examine the question of damages in significant detail.

[119] Ms. Spicer at one time earned revenue as a graphic designer but has not worked consistently since 2000.

[120] According to a clinical report from Dr. Alison Bested of the Environmental Health Clinic at Women’s College Hospital dated March 11, 2003, Ms. Spicer was not able to continue work, “due to ongoing fatigue, muscle pain and cognitive dysfunction which includes poor short term memory, slow processing and difficulty multi-tasking.” Dr. Bested concluded that as a result of her “severe fibromyalgia,” Ms. Spicer is “severely disabled.”

[121] Dr. Whitehead, Ms. Spicer’s treating physician since 1988, confirmed that she suffers from fibromyalgia. She also confirmed that fibromyalgia can interfere with cognitive functions such as memory and concentration.

[122] Dr. Whitehead also testified that Ms. Spicer reported symptoms of a broader condition which could have been post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). In 2018, Dr. Whitehead referred Ms. Spicer for an assessment at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). Ms. Spicer, however, did not attend the assessment, and so no diagnosis of PTSD can be confirmed at this time.

[123] Dr. Whitehead gave evidence that the unresolved dispute with CAA certainly appeared to interfere with Ms. Spicer’s health management, but it was not possible to isolate the alleged actions of CAA as a source for the complex mix of pain and stress exhibited by Ms. Spicer over the years Dr. Whitehead has treated Ms. Spicer.

[124] Dr. Lynn Marshall, head of the environmental health clinic at Women’s College Hospital testified regarding her treatment of Ms. Spicer in 2003-2004. Ms. Spicer participated in a cognitive behavioral therapy group during this period.

[125] Dr. Marshall described the environmental health clinic as a place which specializes in treating people whose symptoms arise from multi-faceted sources which cannot be addressed through other individual medical therapies.

[126] Dr. Marshall’s notes indicate that Ms. Spicer mentioned the 2004 accident and dispute with CAA in appointments at the clinic, though Dr. Marshall did not note any deterioration in Ms. Spicer’s health condition as a result of these reported stresses.

[127] On cross-examination, Dr. Marshall testified that Ms. Spicer’s disabling fibromyalgia was the result of trauma from many different sources. Dr. Marshall was unable to conclude that any specific change in Ms. Spicer’s health condition was a result of CAA’s conduct.

[128] CAA retained Dr. Irene Patelis-Siotis, a psychiatrist, to examine Ms. Spicer and provide an expert report, which was dated March 27, 2019.

[129] Dr. Siotis was qualified as an expert in psychiatry and the treatment and diagnosis of psychiatric disorders.

[130] Based on her examination of Ms. Spicer, Dr. Siotis concluded that Ms. Spicer was experiencing delusions of conspiracies involving CAA, the police and a number of oversight bodies both of the insurance industry and of the police.

[131] According to Dr. Siotis, while physical trauma such as motor vehicle accidents may be stressors which trigger delusions, the disorder itself likely would have developed in childhood due to some trauma early in life.

[132] Dr. Siotis stated that her ultimate diagnosis Ms. Spicer as suffering from a delusional disorder – persecutory type – is rare, affecting approximately 0.2% of the general population. She testified that Ms. Spicer’s beliefs and actions in relation to CAA are supported by delusional diagnosis. Dr. Siotis’s evidence is that conspiracies Ms. Spicer alleges are part of process by which she tries to make sense of why things in her life happened. Once organized in this way, her belief in the truth of those conspiracies cannot be shaken.

[133] Dr. Siotis testified that a delusional disorder explains Ms. Spicer’s beliefs and why there is no evidence to corroborate those beliefs. She described this disorder as a filter, which allows a person to construct all events as related to and supporting a specified narrative. She further testified that such a disorder would allow a person to appear as well-spoken, well-groomed and not visibly ill or unwell.

[134] CAA highlighted certain clinical notes by Ms. Spicer’s own treating physicians which raise the possibility that Ms. Spicer suffers from a delusional disorder. This diagnosis, however, was never confirmed by any of Ms. Spicer’s treating physicians, or her family physician. Ms. Spicer vehemently denies that she has such a condition.

[135] I need not reach a finding on whether Ms. Spicer suffers from a delusional disorder and I expressly refrain from doing so.

[136] Ms. Spicer did not adduce evidence of specific losses as a result of CAA’s conduct. While she linked her inability to work and function well to the impact of CAA’s actions, she also relied on testimony that her work related disability resulted from her fibromyalgia. In these circumstances, there is no evidence directly linking CAA’s conduct to harm to Ms. Spicer.

[137] Therefore, I find that even if Ms. Spicer’s allegations of liability on the part of CAA could be established, there is insufficient evidence of any losses tied to the handling of Ms. Spicer’s insurance claims by CAA to justify an award of general damages.

[138] In these circumstances, I also conclude there is no basis for punitive damages. I find neither CAA nor any of its employees ever intentionally harmed Ms. Spicer.

[139] I also find no basis for damages in Ms. Spicer’s allegations with respect to intentional spoliation of evidence, loss or reputation or loss of economic value with respect to her car.

Findings

[140] In light of the evidence and testimony at this trial, I have been able to reach several findings.

[141] First, I have found that CAA did not breach any contractual or fiduciary obligation to Ms. Spicer, and responded to each of the claims that is the subject of this litigation in responsive and appropriate ways. In several instances, CAA went beyond its legal obligations toward Ms. Spicer in order to accommodate her concerns and preferences.

[142] Second, I have found that the evidence supports CAA’s conclusion that the damage arising from the 2004 accident was minor rear-end collision damage, and that the hole in the firewall of Ms. Spicer’s car revealed during the October, 2004 water test was not accident related.

[143] Third, I have found that Ms. Spicer has not established any damages flowing from the conduct of CAA even if CAA had been found to have violated any legal obligation toward Ms. Spicer.

[144] Fourth, I have found Mr. Jansen at no time engaged in improper treatment, harassment or stalking toward Ms. Spicer. I found Mr. Jansen to be a trustworthy and honest individual, genuinely bewildered and distressed by the serious allegations which Ms. Spicer had made. In my view, it is important to state that the only evidence of improper conduct by Mr. Jansen is the testimony of Ms. Spicer. Where their accounts diverge, I find Mr. Jansen’s account is supported by the surrounding evidence, the testimony of others who knew Mr. Jansen, and is generally more credible.

Conclusions

[145] Ms. Spicer’s attachment to her 1991 Pontiac Sunbird cannot be overstated. She testified that the car was one of only 1255 manufactured that year, and one of only 800 with the specific performance features of her car. She stated that the car “was expensively maintained, kept in meticulous showroom condition, with low mileage.”

[146] In clinical progress notes at Women’s College dated November 18, 2005, Ms. Spicer is reported to have stated that, “This car is all I have and all I will ever have.”

[147] This attachment to her car, and its value, may explain why she believed that CAA generally, and Mr. Jansen specifically, intended to gain possession of her car. There is no evidence beyond Ms. Spicer’s testimony to support this theory, however, and I have found that neither CAA nor Mr. Jansen acted improperly at any time towards Ms. Spicer.

[148] That said, I found Ms. Spicer to have a deep and consistent belief in the truth of the events and experiences to which she testified. I do not believe she is being untruthful when she testified that she feels like a victim, or that the strain of her dispute with CAA, and this litigation itself, has caused her significant distress.

[149] When presented with discrepancies between her recollection and evidence which contradicts her recollection, she repeatedly stated that, “I can’t prove it, but it happened.”

[150] The result of a trial, however, is based on what can be proven.

[151] For the reasons set out above, I find that Ms. Spicer has not established that CAA is liable to her on any of the grounds set out in her fresh as amended statement of claim, or for any damages based on how Ms. Spicer’s various insurance claims were handled by CAA, or for CAA’s conduct in this litigation.

[152] Ms. Spicer’s action against CAA is therefore dismissed.

[153] If the parties cannot reach an agreement with respect to costs, I will receive brief submissions from the parties (of no more than 3 pages, together with a bill of costs) within 30 days of this judgment.

[154] I am grateful for the efforts of Ms. Spicer on her own behalf, and Mr. Schacter on behalf of CAA, to ensure the effective conduct of this trial notwithstanding the challenges each faced.

Sossin J. Released: 2020-03-02