Category: Threshold

O’Brien v. O’Brien, 2018 ONSC 4665

The Plaintiff sustained an ankle fracture in a motor vehicle accident. Following the trial, Justice McKelvey found that the Plaintiff’s potential future inability to work could be considered in determining threshold. Justice McKelvey held that the Plaintiff suffered a permanent and serious impairment in relation to his employment, but not in relation to his usual activities of daily living.

Rodrigues v. Purtill, 2018 ONSC 3102

The subject of this action was an MVA which involved a family of five. The mother and two oldest sons sustained injuries as a result of the accident. Tragically, their five month old son/brother died as a result of the collision. The Defendant admitted liability, but disputed threshold. Justice Hockin found that all of the Plaintiffs’ injuries met threshold. The mother was awarded $145,000.00 in general damages for soft tissue injuries and psychological issues. Each son was awarded $65,000.00 in general damages for psychological issues. Justice Hockin followed the Court of Appeal’s reasons in To v. Toronto, and awarded FLA damages at the high end of the range, adjusted for current dollars. The mother was awarded $130,000.00 in relation to the death of her infant son. The father was also awarded $130,000.00 for the death of his infant son and $25,000.00 for the loss of care, guidance, and companionship of his wife. Each son was awarded $35,000.00 in relation to the death of his brother and $30,000.00 for loss of care, guidance, and companionship of his mother. In total, $415,000.00 was awarded in FLA damages.

Mousseau v. Morrison, 2018 ONSC 1274

The Plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries and was awarded pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as a result of a rear-end collision. The Defendant brought a threshold motion on the basis that the Plaintiff continued to work, performed a significant amount of her housekeeping duties, and was independent in her activities of daily living. Justice McMillan found the Plaintiff, her husband, and her co-workers to be credible and reliable witnesses and concluded that her chronic pain injuries surpassed the threshold.

Bodenstein v. Penley, 2017 ONSC 116

In this case, the jury awarded general damages of $1,600.00 and $1,500.00 in lost income to one Plaintiff and $11,500.00 in general damages and $5,000.00 in lost income to the other Plaintiff. Justice Gilmore concluded that neither of the Plaintiffs’ non-pecuniary damage claims met the statutory threshold as both Plaintiffs were able to work and continue with their daily activities. Justice Gilmore also found that the jury did not accept the evidence of the Plaintiffs with respect to the nature and severity of their complaints and that the Plaintiffs’ injuries were not impairments and were not serious.

Grieves v. Parsons, 2018 ONSC 26

The jury awarded the Plaintiff a total of $200,000.00 in damages, including $50,000.00 in general damages. At trial, the Plaintiff testified that he could no longer work as a truck driver or ride motorcycles for recreation as a result of his injuries. Justice Charney accepted that the Plaintiff could no longer work as a truck driver, but found that this was the result of osteoarthritis in his shoulder which was not caused by the MVA. As such, Justice Charney found that the Plaintiff had not sustained a permanent serious impairment and his claim for non-pecuniary damages was struck.

Nadarajah v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2017 ONSC 7522

The jury awarded the Plaintiff $15,000.00 in general damages. Justice Monahan found that while the soft-tissue pains suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of the MVA were “no doubt unpleasant and perhaps frustrating”, they were still tolerable, were not serious, and did not impact an important function. The Plaintiff was also unable to explain how his soft tissue injuries prevented him from performing his daily activities. As a result, the Plaintiff did not meet the statutory threshold and his claim for general damages was barred.

Nguyen v. Szot, 2017 ONSC 3705

The jury awarded the Plaintiff general damages of $2,700.00 and damages for past income loss of $3,124.00. The Defendant brought a threshold motion following the jury’s award. Justice Archibald concluded that the Plaintiff’s injuries were neither serious nor permanent and that the Plaintiff was exaggerating the level of impairment that he had suffered. Justice Archibald was also critical of the Plaintiff’s psychological expert whom he felt had acted as the Plaintiff’s advocate during testimony. The Plaintiff was ordered to pay costs of $90,790.00 and disbursements of $71,000.00.

Johnston v. Walker, 2017 ONSC 3494

The Defendant sought an order that the Plaintiff’s MVA injuries did not pass the statutory threshold. The jury had awarded the Plaintiff $60,000.00 in general damages. Justice Charney held that the Plaintiff’s injuries did not meet the statutory threshold as the evidence did not support that her ongoing pain substantially interfered with her ability to continue her regular employment or most of her usual activities of daily living. Justice Charney was also critical of the Plaintiff’s medical-legal report because it did not set out the Plaintiff’s specific functional limitations and was inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s own evidence.