Thomas C. Barber

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident claim, the defendant brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory requirement of a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.

The plaintiff adduced evidence from multiple medical experts and lay witnesses demonstrating chronic pain that substantially interfered with her employment and daily living.

Despite some credibility issues regarding the plaintiff's employment history and surveillance footage, the court found the corroborating medical and lay evidence sufficient to establish the impairment.

The motion was dismissed.

In a motor vehicle accident damages trial where liability was admitted, the court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of surveillance video evidence of the plaintiff.

The defendant sought to use the video under Rule 30.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to impeach the plaintiff’s credibility regarding the extent of her physical limitations.

Applying the principles from Landolfi v. Fargione, the court held that evidence tendered solely for impeachment must be relevant to credibility on a material issue and its probative value must outweigh its prejudicial effect.

The surveillance showing the plaintiff performing daily activities was relevant to credibility and its probative value, while modest, was not trifling.

The court ruled the videos admissible solely for impeachment purposes, with a limiting instruction to the jury.

The defendants brought a motion under rule 21.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking determination of questions of law before trial.

They argued that the plaintiff farmer’s action for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision was barred under s. 267.6(1) of the Insurance Act because he operated an uninsured all‑terrain vehicle (ATV) on a public road, and that his claim for statutory accident benefits was barred by s. 30(1)(a) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The court held that the ATV, used exclusively in farming operations, qualified as a “self‑propelled implement of husbandry” under the Highway Traffic Act.

As such, it was excluded from the definition of motor vehicle and from Ontario’s compulsory automobile insurance regime.

The plaintiff was therefore not barred from suing the negligent driver and his claim for statutory accident benefits was not foreclosed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order regarding an insurer's duty to defend.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that based on the plaintiff's pleadings, the possibility that the appellant's statements were made carelessly rather than intentionally could not be ruled out.

Applying the Supreme Court's principle that the mere possibility of a claim falling within the policy triggers the duty to defend, the court set aside the motion judge's order and awarded costs to the appellant.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision denying him weekly benefits and a lump sum award under the Insurance Act following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the arbitrator misapprehended the medical evidence and his ability to perform tasks, and requested a referral to the Medical and Rehabilitation Advisory Panel.

The Director of Arbitrations found no error in the arbitrator's assessment of the evidence, noting the appellant's ability to engage in activities such as cross-country skiing and municipal election campaigning.

The appeal was dismissed, but the appellant was awarded his filing fee expenses.

The Applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and received weekly accident benefits until they were terminated by the Insurer.

The Applicant sought arbitration, claiming ongoing entitlement to weekly benefits due to upper and mid-back pain, as well as a special award for unreasonably withheld payments.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant failed to establish that his ongoing back problems were caused or aggravated by the accident, noting a significant pre-existing history of symptomatic degenerative disc disease.

Furthermore, the arbitrator concluded that the Applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks, as he remained able to perform some property maintenance and actively campaign for municipal office.

The claims for weekly benefits and a special award were dismissed, but the Applicant was awarded his arbitration expenses as he had acted in good faith.