The appellant appealed a jury award of zero damages and a trial judge's ruling that her claim for non-pecuniary loss did not meet the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act following a motor vehicle accident.
The appellant argued the jury verdict was perverse and the trial judge erred in his threshold analysis.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the jury to conclude the appellant's post-accident difficulties were inevitable due to pre-existing osteoarthritis, and there was ample evidence supporting the trial judge's threshold ruling.
