The most widely read magazine for Canadian lawyers
Issue link: https://digital.canadianlawyermag.com/i/50821
LEGAL REPORT: LITIGATION injury" was defined as a sprain, strain, or whiplash-associated disorder injury caused by such an accident, and not re- sulting in a serious impairment. Plaintiffs Peari Morrow and Brea Ped- ersen both suffered soft-tissue injuries from two discrete auto accidents. Mor- row's soft-tissue injuries of the neck and upper back caused her pain and suffer ing, and affected every aspect of her life. She became a nervous driver, and her social life was severely curtailed by pain. Pedersen's soft-tissue injuries impacted her everyday life. Even the lifting of a pen caused her pain and discomfort. After hearing the evidence, Wittman found that if the $4,000 cap had not been imposed, Morrow's injuries would have been assessed at non-pecuniary general damages of $20,000. Similarly, Pedersen's injuries would have been awarded non- pecuniary general damages of $15,000. While the judge held that the object of maintaining affordable auto insurance premiums was crucial, the "cap" was not connected to achieving that goal. He held that relief would be retroactive. Compared to Alberta, "in Ontario, we have two things that affect minor inju- ries," says Halpern. "We have a deduction for pain and suffering awards that don't exceed $100,000, and that deduction is $30,000 if it comes off your award for damages. If you get $50,000 awarded to you by the jury, you only collect $20,000. Family members are affected indirectly, too. For an award less than $50,000, $15,000 is automatically deducted. "The other thing we have in Ontario," Damages: Estimating Pecuniary Loss Cara L. Brown An original approach to blending economic data with unique, particularized case law from civil litigation cases. Supplements invoiced separately (1-2/yr) The Oatley-McLeish Guide to Personal Injury Practice in Motor Vehicle Cases Roger G. Oatley, John A. McLeish and contributing authors This looseleaf service provides all the essential step-by-step guidance you need to effectively manage the complexities of Ontario's no-fault insurance system. Product Liability: Canadian Law and Practice Lawrence G. Theall, J. Scott Maidment, Teresa M. Dufort and Jeffrey A. Brown This is the only looseleaf service that equips the legal practitioner to face the unique challenges of litigating product liability claims. Accident Benefits in Ontario James M. Flaherty and Catherine H. Zingg This resource provides both plaintiff and defence lawyers with in-depth guidance on the statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and is essential to achieving the best results for their clients. Also included are summaries and analysis of case law with respect to arbitration decisions from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (F.S.C.O), and relevant judicial decisions. CA011 www.canadalawbook.ca 54 JULY 2008 www. C ANADIAN Law ye rmag.com CA011 (CL 1-2is).indd 1 6/4/08 10:02:56 AM CL0708 says Halpern, "is something called the verbal threshold. You are not allowed to sue for pain and suffering unless you suf- fer a serious injury. It has to affect your work, or if you're not employed, it has to substantially interfere with your usual activities and daily living." The latter be- ing particularly discriminatory towards those out of the workforce: pensioners, children, and stay-at-home moms. "It's a very high test. In Ontario we have two liability-limiting provisions, whereas "It eliminates all claims that would have been worth $30,000, but as you get more, say the case is worth $40,000 or $50,000, that's a significant amount of money to most people. It doesn't affect catastrophic injury cases, but I think it's wrong." — NANCY RALPH