The plaintiff was asleep in a car in a parking lot when he was rear ended by the defendant. At the commencement of trial, the only remaining issue was the plaintiff’s entitlement to and quantum of general damages. The defendant brought a threshold motion. The plaintiff did not serve any expert medical reports. He intended to rely on reports and records of various treating doctors and assessors and his own viva voce evidence. While the court accepted that the plaintiff had the right to rely on his own evidence in support of his claim that he sustained a threshold injury, this did not water down or relieve him from compliance with the requirements under s. 4(3) of O Reg 461/96. Further, he could not give his own opinion with respect to whether his impairment was permanent or whether it was sustained as a result of the subject accident. Following review of the medical records on which the plaintiff relied, Justice Williams held that the plaintiff did not have any evidence of permanency of his impairment, or evidence that any impairment was sustained as the result of use or operation of an automobile. Justice Williams allowed the defendant’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for general damages. As a result, the action was also dismissed.
