William Grantley Woodward

The plaintiff suffered a low back injury in a motor vehicle accident.

At trial, the defendant successfully moved for a finding that the plaintiff did not meet the threshold for permanent serious impairment under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The trial judge found the impairment was neither permanent nor serious.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held the trial judge erred in finding the impairment was not permanent, as there was no evidence the pain would completely resolve.

The Court also found the trial judge took an overly narrow approach to whether the impairment was serious by focusing only on the plaintiff's ability to resume employment and household duties, without considering the effect of continuing pain on her enjoyment of life.

The appeal was allowed.

The appellant appealed from a trial judge's dismissal of a motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The appellant had previously sought to adduce the same evidence before the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal and refused to reconsider its decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the current appeal, finding that the admissibility of the evidence had already been determined and that the proposed evidence did not meet the requirements for admission, as it could not reasonably be expected to have affected the result at trial.