Mundinger v. Ashton, 2019 ONSC 7161

The plaintiff sued following a 2010 motor vehicle accident, when she was 19 years old. She alleged to have sustained soft tissue injuries, which resulted in ongoing issues with pain and psychological trouble. The jury awarded $29,000 for past loss of income, $4,000 for future loss of income, and $20,000 for general damages. Justice Charney concluded that the plaintiff did not meet the threshold. Justice Charney barred the jury from deciding on the claim for future care costs due to insufficient evidence. He also declined to put a question to the jury regarding loss of competitive advantage due to the lack of opinion evidence separating same from the claim for loss of future income. In terms of the threshold motion, Justice Charney held that a psychologist did not fall within the definition of a “physician” in the threshold regulation and therefore could not satisfy the requirements for a physician’s opinion regarding the threshold test (a psychologist’s opinion could corroborate the evidence of a physician, though). Nevertheless, he proceeded to consider the evidence of the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Romeo Vitelli, whose evidence/opinion he did not accept. He did accept the opinion of Dr. Jeremy Larouche, an orthopaedic surgeon, appearing for the defendant.