Peric v. Mississauga, 2026 ONSC 629

CITATION: Peric v. Mississauga, 2026 ONSC 629

COURT FILE NO. CV-18-611390

DATE: 2026-02-02

BETWEEN:

NANCY PERIC

Plaintiff

– and –

~~JOHN DOE~~ AADIL JAMIL, MIWAY and THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF MISSISSAUGA

Defendants

Nancy Peric, Self-Represented and acting in person

Scott Emerson Hamilton counsel for the defendants, Aadil Jamil and The Corporation of the City of Mississauga

HEARD: September 22, 24, 25, 26, 29 and October 1, 2025

1The plaintiff, Nancy Peric (born August 3, 1969) claimed damages for injuries sustained to her on August 24, 2017 when her head came into contact with the passenger side exterior rear view mirror of the defendant’s 60 foot articulated passenger bus. The bus was being operated by the defendant, Aadil Jamil, employed by the defendant, MiWay, being the transit authority operated by the defendant, City of Mississauga. The bus was manufactured by New Flyer Industries.

2Ms. Peric was walking westbound on the north side walk of Bloor Street West, two blocks west of Islington Avenue at what is called the Green Lanes bus stop. The bus was stopped and in the process of permitting passengers to board having departed the Islington subway stop minutes earlier.

3Despite the statutory requirement under Section 267 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8 and Ontario Regulation 31/03 pertaining to damages claimed directly or indirectly arising from losses involving in the use or operation of vehicles, Ms. Peric was the only witness called on her own behalf.

4The defendants called seven witnesses to address the issues of liability and damages. There were 33 exhibits entered into evidence and a further seven documents referred to and marked as lettered exhibits.

BACKGROUND

5Ms. Peric, then 48 years of age and the mother of one son, seven years of age (born on February 15, 2010), lived at that time on Islington Avenue south of Bloor Street West. She was walking with her son and she testified always holding his hand. They were walking to the Six Points Plaza post office within the Shoppers Drug Mart on the west side of Kipling Avenue.

6Her son had a new cell phone given to him by his father and was recording when Ms. Peric’s head made contact with the passenger side rearview mirror of the bus. She was walking near the curb. She was wearing shoes with a heel height of not more than one inch.

7Ms. Peric denied that she was slightly bent over and/or distracted by her son as they walked past the front passenger corner of the bus.

8The theory of Ms. Peric’s case is that she was walking upright along the passenger side of the bus when it suddenly lowered causing the rearview mirror to strike the top of her head. This has resulted in a minor traumatic brain injury with resulting psychological issues and an inability to work.

9In support of her theory was the audio recording from her son’s cell phone (Exhibit 5) which Ms Peric submitted recorded the crashing sound of the rearview mirror striking her head. Various witnesses were asked to listen to the audio recording and testified hearing (only) static. She also relied on the absence of any abrasion to her face or forehead from photographs taken that evening (Exhibits 2, 3 and 4). It was also admitted the bus had an ability to “kneel” at its front passenger entrance to assist mobility challenged passengers and/or help those with carriages or strollers to board or disembark.

10Immediately following incident, Ms. Peric grabbed the top of her head and walked to a nearby retaining wall to the north and sat down. According to Ms Peric, the front passenger doors to the bus opened and, the driver emerged wearing dark sunglasses whom she admits yelling at for what had happened.

11Ms. Peric also recalled speaking with a supervisor (Paul Crosby) who arrived some moments later and then waited until an ambulance arrived to attend to her.

12Ms. Peric was transported to Toronto Western Hospital where she was examined and then released. The photographs taken that evening do not show any visible abrasion or swelling to the forehead of Ms. Peric.

13Regarding how the incident occurred, the defendants called multiple witnesses. The first was the bus driver, the defendant Aadil Jamil.

14Mr. Jamil had been driving MiWay vehicles since 2011 following his employer’s in class and on the road training. He explained the bus in question, #0866, had a kneeling function for riders that required assistance. That is, the front passenger side of the bus could be lowered about 5 inches by a switch at the driver’s console. That switch only functioned after the bus has been stopped, the transmission shifted into neutral, the parking brake applied and the bus doors opened. The kneeling function activates lights along the passenger side of the bus and an audible beeping sound. The lowering occurs by letting compressed air out of the suspension system which causes an additional loud noise.

15On August 24, 2017 Aadil Jamil began his shift at the South Common Centre Bus Terminal in Mississauga at 3:47 pm. He then drove to the Islington subway station arriving at about 4:50 pm. He departed at the scheduled time, being 4:56 pm.

16As he pulls up to the Green Lanes stop, he estimated 15 to 20 people were waiting and he pulled up to within 4 to 6 inches of the curb (as attested to by Exhibits 18-20) adjacent to the bus shelter. Those waiting included a lady with a stroller (Sado Hussan) who was standing about 4 to 5 feet from the curb.

17Aadil Jamil stopped the bus, applied the emergency brake and opened the doors. The edges of the open doors stick out about an inch or so from the side of the bus. He then activated the kneeling feature. When complete, passengers in the bus began getting on it. As it got to Sado Hussan with the stroller in front of her, he observed Ms. Peric walk by in front of Sado Hussan. He then heard a loud bang like a bird or rock had hit the bus. Aadil Jamil then saw and heard Ms. Peric upset and angry. He got out of his seat and off the bus. Ms. Peric told him that his bus had hit her and that he had moved the bus. He examined the passenger side rear view mirror and observed no damage to it. He asked Ms. Peric if she required medical attention and called the control station for a supervisor on his radio. He was advised that individual (Paul Crosby) would come right away from the Islington subway station.

18Aadil Jamil then advised the passengers of the incident and the bus would not be proceeding. They were to disembark and wait for the next bus. Sado Hussan was asked if she would remain and tell the supervisor what she had observed.

19Paul Crosby arrived within 10 minutes and Aadil Jamil soon after that left the scene to go back to the Islington subway station to use the restroom. When he returned, the passenger and Ms. Peric were gone. He was asked to drive the bus back to the garage so he raised it from the kneeling position without incident and drove back to the terminal. He then parked the bus and began filling out the requisite form (Exhibit 23 – Drivers Version).

20Exhibits 7 and 8 referred to manufacturing issues which have arisen since the 2008 New Flyer 60 foot articulated bus (#0866) was delivered to the City of Mississauga. Exhibit 7 relates to a November, 2008 notification of a possible seizure in the alternator shaft and pulley causing friction and an engine compartment fire. That did not occur on August 24, 2017 and I reject it as a possible cause for the contact between Nancy Peric and the passenger side rear view mirror of the bus.

21Exhibit 8 was an internet posting suggesting some New Flyer buses equipped with a MAN V8-65L axle beam could fail causing loss of control. The defendant bus was stationery at the time of the incident. There was no evidence this bus was equipped with the MAN V8-65L axle. I also rely on the evidence it was driven back to the Central Parked Garage after the incident to reject this as a cause for the contact between Nancy Peric and the passenger side rear view mirror of bus #0866.

Liability

22The allegations of negligence on the part of Aadil Jamil in the operation of the bus or by the City of Mississauga in its maintenance of the bus are contained in paragraph 7 of the Statement of Claim. Those allegations have not been proven by the evidence tendered.

23To the contrary, the above summary of the evidence makes it clear, and I so find, Nancy Peric walked along the passenger side of the stopped MiWay bus and, upon passing the open front door of the bus, already in its kneeling position, struck her head against the top portion of the passenger side rear view mirror. I find there was no sudden drop of the passenger side of the bus.

24The passenger side rear view mirror was there to be seen. It did not suddenly move (or move at all) after the bus kneeled and passengers began getting on the bus. I am unable to find any fault or negligence on the part of Aadil Jamil as the operator of the bus. He pulled into the bus stop. He followed the usual procedure required to begin boarding of those who wished to become passengers on the bus. This included lowering the passenger side front of the bus before any passengers began to board. It was before Nancy Peric walked by the front passenger door of the bus.

25My finding that the bus was already in the kneeling position before Nancy Peric made contact with the passenger side rear view mirror rebuts the plaintiff’s theory of the bus being lowered as Nancy Peric walked by (and thus any negligence on the part of Aadil Jamil). Similarly, the lack of observation or evidence of any sudden lowering of the passenger’s side of the bus after Nancy Peric walked by is compelling. Specifically, I rely on the absence of any such observations by the independent witness, Sado Hussan. This rebuts any allegations that the City of Mississauga failed to properly maintain the vehicle. This is reinforced by the ability of Aadil Jamil who raised the passenger side of the bus following the incident to drive it back to the Central Park Garage.

26As a result, the plaintiff’s actions fails and is dismissed.

Assessment of Damages

27If I am incorrect in the finding of no liability on the defendants, I would summarize the evidence and assess damages as follows.

28Nancy Peric described having suffered a minor traumatic brain injury as a result to the blow to her head. This manifested itself into chronic pain throughout her body with cognitive impairments such that she has been unable to return to work. She described numbness, swelling, throbbing and pressure throughout her body following this incident.

29Unfortunately, Nancy Peric did not call any independent medical evidence. In this regard, as stated, she confirmed being transported from the scene by ambulance to Toronto Western Hospital where she was examined and released. Those records were not tendered as evidence at the trial. She continued to feel unwell and attended Trillium Health Center the following day. She sought medical treatment from a variety of doctors and specialists. Those records were also not tendered as evidence at this trial.

30Nancy Peric attempted to tender Exhibits being letters from examining medical practitioners, Dr. Irene Hussain, dated April 2, 2023 and Dr. Mario Di Cosmo, a neuro-visual optometrist created sometime on or after the January 30, 2023 visit (Exhibits B and C) which were successfully objected to being filed as numbered exhibits by the defendants on the basis these were individuals who were not going to be called as witnesses or made available for cross-examination. Further, these letters postdated the medical evidence previously served and available for review by the defendant’s neuropsychologist, Dr. Lawrence Freedman who was scheduled to and did give evidence.

31During the trial, I explained to Nancy Peric, the legislative requirement that I determine whether or not her injuries surpassed the verbal threshold contained in Section 267.5 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. I.8 of her having suffered “permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function” in order to award her non-pecuniary general damages.

32Further, this required, under Ontario Regulation 381/03, that she adduce evidence from a physician that explains:

a) the nature of the impairment;

b) the permanence of the impairment;

c) the specific function that is impaired; and

d) the importance of the specific function to the person.

In addition, that physician was required to be “trained for and experienced in the assessment or treatment of the type of impairment that is alleged”.

33The defendants called Dr. Lawrence Freedman, a neuropsychologist, as a witness and sought for him give opinion evidence in clinical neuropsychology regarding Nancy Peric, whom he examined on March 16, 2022. As Dr. Freedman explained, clinical neuropsychology involves the assessment and treatment of persons with dysfunction of the brain by examining one’s cognitive status and brain function.

34Dr. Freedman’s examination and testing took into account the clinical history obtained, as well as evaluating the subject’s cognitive function through selected testing (administered by a psychometrist). These tests measure memory, processing skills and motor function. The focus is on determining whether the individual has suffered traumatic brain injury and/or has ongoing impairments. It is not a physical examination except in a superficial way.

35For Dr. Freedman’s examination and assessment of Nancy Peric, he testified that it was significant to review what was recorded by trained health professionals during the time immediately following the incident. For that, Dr. Freedman relied on the ambulance call records which noted no loss of consciousness or visible trauma arising from the blow to Nancy Peric’s head. Her Glasgow Coma Scale score was normal. Nancy Peric was not noted to be disoriented or confused. Similarly, the triage assessment at Toronto Western Hospital confirmed the findings by the ambulance attendant while also recording complaints of neck and back stiffness including a burning sensation.

36The absence of any signs of brain trauma resulted in the decision at the Toronto Western Hospital not to perform CT scan of the head. When the CT scans were performed at the Trillium Health Centre in the days following, as a result of complaints of head pressure and an unsteady gait, the CT scans were normal.

37As a result of ongoing complaints of unsteadiness on her feet, nausea, head pressure and anxiety, Nancy Peric was referred to a neurologist, Dr. Ranalli. Dr. Freedman reviewed the consult note of Dr. Ranalli from September, 2017 which concluded Nancy Peric suffered from a post concussive syndrome aggravated by anxiety. The diagnosis was also made at a subsequent assessments by Dr. Sidhu at the Trillium Brain and Spine Institute in October, 2017. There was also benign positional vertigo. Dr. Sidhu recommended vestibular physiotherapy.

38As indicated in the evidence of Nancy Peric, she continued to have symptoms and continued to receive medical assessment and treatments for her ongoing complaints with records produced to Dr. Freedman into 2020.

39Dr. Freedman testified the evidence available to him did not support the criteria necessary to conclude a traumatic brain injury had occurred. Dr. Freedman relied on the absence of memory loss, the individual being disoriented or neurological deficits. Both CT scans conducted in the days following the accident were negative for any trauma to the brain. Dr. Freedman agreed there had been a minor head injury. The ongoing complaints were not a result of any neurological injury.

Assessment of General Damages

40Given the nature and extent of the physical and psychological injuries sustained to Nancy Peric, as summarized above, I would assess her non pecuniary general damages to be $75,000. The statutory deductible imposed by Section 267.5 of the Insurance Act, supra, for 2025 where the assessment is less than $155,965.54 is $46,709.05. This leaves a net general damage award of $28,290.50.

41That amount is only recoverable if the defendants were liable to the plaintiff (which has not occurred). Further, the plaintiff must meet the burden of proving that her injuries and impairment surpass the statutory verbal threshold as stated above, and as contained in Section 267.5(b) of the Insurance Act, supra.

42Nancy Peric failed to tender evidence from any physicians that her injuries surpassed the verbal threshold. As a result, the claim for general damages is dismissed.

Loss of Income

43Nancy Peric gave evidence of being employed since 2001 up until the incident of August 24, 2017 at the her mother’s diner on Bloor Street West called Crème de la Crème Café. She served customers, took phone orders and “did everything”. Nancy Peric was apparently being paid $1,300 a month at the time of the incident $1,300. It was not clear if this was the gross amount or after required deductions. No pay stubs, bank deposit records or tax returns were tendered to support that income. By application of Section 267.5(1) of the Insurance Act, supra, only 70% of the gross amount can be claimed in this action beginning 7 days after the incident which is either, by my calculation, $300 per week or if the $1300 per month was the gross amount, $210 per week.

44There is insufficient evidence to quantify or award any loss of income and I decline to do so.

45Had any loss of income been awarded, it would have been subject to reduction for the payment of collateral benefits. In this regard, there was evidence at trial of payments of statutory automobile accident benefits, that is, Income Replacement Benefits to Nancy Peric of $15,505.08 plus an additional $25,000 (for a total of $40,505.08) as part of a lump sum settlement dated September 1, 2023 of $290,000, all inclusive (Exhibit 11).

46Using the higher (theoretical) income loss of $300 per week to the date of trial, $40,505.08 paid in Income Replacement Benefits is the equivalent of 135 weeks or payment of any loss of income claimed to April 5, 2020. In addition to Income Replacement Benefits, Nancy Peric also began receiving CPP disability retroactive to in or about December, 2017. She is currently being paid $1,230.68 per month ($284.03 per week).

47The purpose of the above theoretical calculations is to demonstrate that had any loss of income been awarded, it would have been eliminated by the payment of deductible collateral benefits.

Assessment of Special Damages

48No evidence was tendered detailing any other recoverable expenses claimed or incurred such as housekeeping or treatment. As a result, I decline to award any amounts under theses heads of damages.

49Again, it should be noted that the $290,000 lump sum settlement of Nancy Peric’s claims for statutory automobile accident benefits included $25,000 towards past and future housekeeping and $240,000 towards past and future medical and rehabilitation benefits.

Conclusion

50For the reasons stated above, this action is dismissed.

Costs

51I required the parties to provide me with their claim for costs in the event they were successful before releasing my decision. Counsel for the defendants did so and provided a draft Bill of Costs seeking partial indemnity fees totalling $120,333.12 plus HST of $15,642.30. This rose to $164,232.12 if assessed at substantial indemnity fees plus HST of $21,350.18. Disbursements were claimed in the amount of $14,683.83, inclusive of HST.

52Although the plaintiff appears to have had counsel until July, 2023, and I raised same, Nancy Peric did not provide me with any materials or invoices to support the claim on her behalf.

53While the hourly rates claimed by counsel for the defendants appear reasonable, I have concerns with the amount of time and the number of individuals involved in the discovery and trial preparation stages which total almost 60% of the time and quantum claimed. The defendants seek recovery for 248.7 hours of law clerk time and 156 hours of senior lawyer time which I find to be excessive.

54I was not alerted to any defendants’ Offer to Settle or another basis to award substantial indemnity costs and decline to do so.

55As a result, I fix the defendants’ costs of $120,000, inclusive of fees, HST and disbursements payable by the plaintiff to the defendant, The Corporation of the City of Mississauga, if demanded.

Mr. Justice G. Dow

Released: February 2, 2026