Stephen G. Ross

The defendants brought a Rule 21.01 motion seeking an order barring the plaintiff from advancing personal injury damages arising from the death of her dog, arguing that psychiatric injury to the owner was not reasonably foreseeable and was too remote in law.

The plaintiff alleged negligent dispensing of medication caused the dog’s death and resulted in severe emotional trauma, nervous shock, and economic loss.

The court held it was not plain and obvious that the damages were unrecoverable and that issues of foreseeability, duty of care, and psychiatric injury required determination on a full evidentiary record.

The motion to strike the personal injury claims was dismissed.

However, the court granted the defendants’ alternative request for further examination for discovery and related production concerning newly disclosed economic loss reports.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and was required to elect between receiving caregiver benefits or income replacement benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

He elected to receive caregiver benefits.

In his subsequent tort action, the defendants sought to deduct the value of the income replacement benefits from his past income loss claim, arguing they were 'available' to him under s. 267.8(1) of the Insurance Act.

The Court of Appeal held that because the plaintiff was legally permitted to receive only one type of benefit, once he elected caregiver benefits, the income replacement benefits were no longer 'available' to him.

The appeal was allowed and the defendants were not permitted to deduct the income replacement benefits.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their motor vehicle accident claims as statute-barred under the Highway Traffic Act.

The motion judge had concluded that the two-year limitation period commenced when the plaintiff knew he had a cause of action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the discoverability of the non-pecuniary damages claim, which required meeting a statutory threshold, and the pecuniary damages claim.

The dismissal of the minor's claims and Family Law Act claims was also overturned on consent.

The plaintiff's personal injury action was settled before trial, and the trial proceeded solely to determine liability between the two defendants following a motor vehicle accident.

During the jury trial, the trial judge repeatedly intervened during the cross-examination and re-examination of the investigating police officer, expressing strong opinions that the officer had failed to conduct a thorough investigation.

The trial judge reiterated these criticisms in his charge to the jury.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's interventions and expressions of opinion crossed the line, usurped the role of counsel, and created an appearance of unfairness.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.