FEATURE
some decisions that judges thought weren't
fair, so there's been a bit of a backlash."
She points to an Ontario Superior Court
case in 2018, Kapoor v. Kuzmanovski, where
it was argued juries could not be impartial in
car accident cases.
"At the heart of the Plaintiff 's motion is
the assertion that prospective jurors in civil
motor vehicle accident cases who drive motor
vehicles and are insured under Ontario's
motor vehicle insurance legislation have an
inherent conflict of interest that prevents
them from carrying out their duties as jurors
in an impartial manner," reads the decision.
"The Plaintiff alleges these prospective jurors'
financial obligation to pay motor vehicle lia-
bility insurance premiums constitutes a per-
sonal interest adverse to that of Plaintiffs in
motor vehicle accident cases."
The court excluded a document the plain-
tiff sought to rely on as evidence, a survey
of 300 residents of Brampton, Ont., that
showed that 73 per cent of those surveyed
would limit damages awarded in motor vehi-
cle accident cases in order to keep insurance
premiums lower.
The Attorney General of Ontario, an inter-
venor in the case, argued that civil jurors
FOCUS ON PERSONAL INJURY
can only be challenged for want of eligibil-
ity under Ontario's Juries Act, an assertion
with which the court agreed. The court also
agreed with the other intervenor in the case,
The Advocates' Society, on its argument that
a challenge for cause based on bias or lack of
partiality of prospective jurors shouldn't be
read into the Juries Act and is a matter best
left to the legislature.
The plaintiff 's motion was ultimately
dismissed, with the judge ruling that there
was no evidence of widespread bias among
Brampton citizens as prospective jurors,
either against the plaintiff in this case specifi-
22 www.lawtimesnews.com
