Stefanie Pereira

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his summary judgment motion, which sought to dismiss the respondent's personal injury action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident in November 2015 but did not commence her action until November 2021.

The motion judge found the claim was timely because the respondent only discovered her injuries met the 'permanent serious impairment' threshold under the Insurance Act in July 2020, following a meeting with a neuropsychologist.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by failing to consider whether the respondent reasonably ought to have known her injuries met the threshold earlier.

Given the persistence of her debilitating symptoms and earlier medical advice that she might never fully recover, the Court held the claim was discoverable more than two years before it was commenced.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to abridge the time for service of a cost of care expert report, which was served 34 days before the pre-trial conference instead of the required 90 days under Rule 53.03(1).

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing there was no reasonable explanation for the delay and that admitting the report would cause prejudice.

The court granted the motion, finding that plaintiff's counsel provided a reasonable explanation of inadvertence due to a busy practice, and that the defendant would not suffer non-compensable prejudice given the trial was still 14 months away when the report was served.

The court dismissed the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action arising from a 2015 motor vehicle collision.

The defendant argued the action was statute-barred, but the court found the limitation period did not begin to run until the plaintiff received a diagnosis in July 2020 that clarified the severity and cause of her injuries.

The court held that the plaintiff acted diligently and that there was not a sufficient body of evidence to support a claim until the feedback session with Dr. Day.

The action was therefore commenced in time.

Following a six-day trial for a motor vehicle accident, the jury awarded the plaintiff $30,000 in general damages.

The defendants brought a threshold motion under the Insurance Act, arguing the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory exception for non-pecuniary damages.

The court analyzed the plaintiff's claim of chronic upper back pain and its impact on his employment as an RCMP officer, specifically his ability to earn overtime and train for the Emergency Response Team.

The court found that while the impairment was permanent, it did not substantially interfere with his regular employment, career training, or usual activities of daily living.

The defendants' motion was granted, and the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary damages was dismissed.