Haji v. Infinity Health Centre, 2021 ONSC 5077

The plaintiff was a physiotherapist at the defendant’s clinic. In the course of work, she was shocked by a frayed plug on an electrical adjustable bed. She alleged that she suffered chronic pain, concussion, headaches, neck pain, sleep difficulties, and poor concentration due to the incident. She sued the defendant for damages and her parents commenced FLA claims. The defendant admitted liability.

Discovery evidence revealed that: the plaintiff went shopping in a mall and various big box stores during Christmas time in the weeks following the incident; she traveled to Banff with her boyfriend within a couple of months of the incident; she attended a fireworks and light display at a Zoo on the Calgary trip; she vacationed internationally once a year on average following the incident where she went out for meals and attended an NFL game. Surveillance captured the plaintiff participating in a five-kilometer obstacle course, walking her dog, wearing headphones, walking with family, and jogging for 40 minutes.

Despite this evidence, Justice Chalmers accepted the evidence of the plaintiff’s treating chronic pain expert that she suffered injuries from the electrical shock that resulted in long-term concussion symptoms, headaches, and migraines. The plaintiffs were awarded damages totaling $742,822.73, comprised of: general damages of $100,000.00; FLA damages of $60,000.00; past loss of income of $375,000.00; future care costs of $159,443.14; special damages of $24,489.35, and subrogated claims of $23,890.24.

Hadzic et al. v. Croxford, 2019 ONSC 6839

The plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident and advanced a chronic pain case at trial. The jury awarded $15,000 for general damages, $35,000 for future medications, and $5,000 for future psychotherapy. Nothing was awarded for past or future income or future care costs. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the damages assessed by the jury were conflicting and irreconcilable; that the assessment of damages was unjust; and other similar grounds. The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that there was no obvious inconsistency in the jury’s findings. The jury’s assessment of damages could reasonably be interpreted to mean that it accepted the plaintiff sustained a modest injury which had not prevented him from continuing to work in his pre-collision capacity. The jury accepted that the plaintiff would require ongoing medication and psychological therapy to continue working until he could retire.