Supriya Sharma

The plaintiff brought an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury verdict awarding net general damages of $11,181.03, the court considered whether the plaintiff's injuries met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff, whose primary role was a homemaker, sustained permanent and serious impairments to important physical and psychological functions, including PTSD and depression.

The court ruled that the injuries met the threshold and dismissed the defendant's motion.

The defendants appealed an interlocutory decision granting the plaintiff's motion to add a receptionist at the Ocular Health Clinic as an individual defendant.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the proposed pleading failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action against the receptionist personally for either negligence or wilful misrepresentation.

The court emphasized that employees are generally protected from personal liability unless their actions are tortious in themselves or exhibit a separate identity or interest from the employer.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and awarded damages by a jury.

The jury questions lumped together damages for medical/rehabilitation, attendant care, and housekeeping.

The trial judge reduced these awards to nil under s. 267.8 of the Insurance Act because the appellant had already received statutory accident benefits exceeding the jury's award.

The appellant appealed, arguing the reduction was improper without a benefit-by-benefit breakdown.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge reasonably reduced the award to prevent double recovery, despite the poorly structured jury questions.