Troy Erin Robert Asselin

The plaintiff sought to put several questions regarding pecuniary damages (past loss of income, future loss of income, future cost of care, housekeeping/home maintenance, and loss of competitive advantage) to the jury.

The court ruled that there was insufficient "reasonable evidence" to support these questions, as the plaintiff's evidence was too speculative, lacked specificity, and did not adequately account for contingencies or causation, especially given subsequent accidents.

Consequently, the judge dismissed the plaintiff's request to put these questions to the jury.

The defendant brought a threshold motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary damages under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act, arguing her injuries did not meet the "permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function" threshold.

Despite a jury finding the plaintiff 60% liable and the defendant 40% liable, and awarding $40,000 in non-pecuniary damages, the court granted the defendant's motion.

The court found the plaintiff's expert medical evidence unreliable due to incomplete and inaccurate information provided by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's own credibility was significantly undermined by inconsistencies regarding her injuries, activities, and financial situation.

Consequently, the plaintiff failed to establish that her injuries met the statutory threshold, and her claim for general damages was dismissed as statute-barred.

The defendant brought a motion for a mistrial following the plaintiff's opening address to the jury.

The court found that the plaintiff's opening address contained inflammatory remarks, appeals to emotion, personal opinions, misstatements of fact, and improper references to the defendant's eye condition and the defendant's insurer.

The court determined that the cumulative effect of these improprieties created a real danger of prejudice and a miscarriage of justice, which could not be cured by jury instructions without negatively impacting the jury's perception of counsel and the plaintiff.

Consequently, the motion for a mistrial was granted.

The plaintiff sought to amend her statement of claim to correct a misnomer, substituting 'John Doe' with 'Dr. Hung-Tat Lo' as a defendant in a motor vehicle accident claim.

The court considered whether the proposed defendant would have objectively known the litigation was directed at him, applying the 'litigating finger' test.

Despite discrepancies in the pleaded facts and the proposed defendant's account, the court found that he would have recognized himself as the intended target.

The court also determined that the delay in bringing the motion was not inordinate or unexplained.

The motion to amend the statement of claim was granted.

Following a two-week jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision, the jury awarded the plaintiff $15,000 in general damages for a minor soft tissue strain.

The trial judge was required to determine whether the plaintiff met the statutory threshold under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court found that while the plaintiff suffered a permanent impairment from a soft tissue injury to his left shoulder, the impairment was neither 'serious' nor 'important' as it did not substantially interfere with his employment or usual activities of daily living.

The plaintiff's claim for general damages was therefore dismissed.

The plaintiffs in two actions arising from a motor vehicle accident appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motions to add the driver and owner of the vehicle they were passengers in as defendants.

The Master found that the two-year limitation period had expired and that the plaintiffs had sufficient facts to allege negligence against the proposed defendants within the limitation period, or alternatively, failed to exercise due diligence to discover those facts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the Master's application of the discoverability doctrine.