Focus On
NEW In-House Counsel | Insurance | Intellectual Property | Immigration | Natural Resources | Real Estate | Tax

Personal Injury

Latest

Thursday, June 15, 2017 @ 8:43 AM

Wellness: Does the Law Society Tribunal have a duty to accommodate? | Darryl Singer

Those who practise in the areas of human rights law and employment law are familiar with the concept of “duty to accommodate.” At the intersection of employment legislation and the Ontario Human Rights Code, employers have long been held to have a duty to accommodate an employee with disability. Addiction and mental health issues are deemed disabilities. ... [read more]

Tuesday, June 13, 2017 @ 9:00 AM

Use of 'crumbling skull' doctrine leads to new trial in B.C. court

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial in a personal injury case, finding that “the use of the phrase ‘crumbling skull’ to describe a plaintiff’s condition is, in any event, rarely helpful” and that complete analysis by the court is required. ... [read more]

Tuesday, June 13, 2017 @ 8:31 AM

VICARIOUS LIABILITY - Liability of employer for acts of employee

Appeal by the plaintiff, Ivic, from dismissal of her action as against the defendant, United Taxi. The plaintiff attended a party. A friend arranged for a taxi after the plaintiff became intoxicated and felt unwell. The plaintiff alleged the taxi driver sexually assaulted her. The plaintiff sued the driver, the owner of the taxi and the taxi company. The plaintiff alleged the taxi company was vicariously liable for the driver's acts, was negligent, and breached the fiduciary duty it owed to her as a passenger. The order under appeal granted the taxi company summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claims as against it. The motion judge noted that the driver had no criminal record and the taxi company had no knowledge he might have a propensity for sexual or other violence. The plaintiff appealed the motion judge's findings on the issue of the taxi company's vicarious liability. ... [read more]

Monday, June 12, 2017 @ 11:23 AM

Neinstein's Pacheco wins Women's Caucus Award

Neinstein Personal Injury Lawyers’ Daniela M. Pacheco was recently presented the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association’s (OTLA) Women’s Caucus Award. ... [read more]

Friday, June 09, 2017 @ 9:05 AM

Don’t get the retirement age wrong in personal injury claims Golden eggs

The selection of a retirement age is generally a key assumption in the quantification of personal injury claims. When an employee participates in a defined benefit pension plan, it is often assumed that the most appropriate retirement age is when the employee is eligible for an unreduced pension. An unreduced pension is often described as a full pension, thereby suggesting that a rational employee will choose to retire when they have maximized their pension. However, an “unreduced pension” and a “full pension” are not one and the same. ... [read more]

Monday, June 05, 2017 @ 8:40 AM

Litigating pediatric brain injuries takes a multidisciplinary team

Litigating a traumatic brain injury presents diverse medico-legal challenges that require harmony between an individual’s health care team and their legal team. In cases involving children, these challenges become even more complex. ... [read more]

Friday, June 02, 2017 @ 4:20 PM

SCC says psychiatric diagnosis not a prerequisite to mental injury claims Russell Brown

Tort victims may recover damages for their mental injuries, without proving that they have a medically recognized psychiatric or psychological illness or condition, the Supreme Court has ruled in a 9-0 decision which may open the door wider for psychological damages claims. ... [read more]

Friday, June 02, 2017 @ 1:02 PM

PHYSICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURIES - Psychological injuries - Cognitive impairment - Personality change - Arising subsequent to incident

Appeal from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal setting aside a decision awarding to Saadati $100,000 in non-pecuniary damages for a psychological injury arising out of a motor vehicle accident. In July 2005, Saadati’s tractor-truck was struck by a vehicle driven by Moorhead. Saadati appeared at the time to have been uninjured. This accident was the second in a series of five motor vehicle collisions involving Saadati between January 2003 and March 2009, inclusive. Saadati had suffered chronic pain since the first accident, which was later aggravated by the third accident. In 2007, Saadati commenced an action in negligence against Moorhead and the other respondents. The respondents collectively admitted liability for the accident, but took the position that no damage had been suffered. The trial judge concluded that Saadati had not demonstrated any physical injury, but found that the accident had caused him “psychological injuries, including personality change and cognitive difficulties”. This conclusion was based upon the testimony of friends and family to the effect that, after the accident, Saadati’s personality had changed for the worse. The trial judge awarded Saadati $100,000 for non-pecuniary damages. The British Columbia Court of Appeal set aside the award after it concluded that Saadati had not proven a medically recognized psychiatric or psychological illness or condition through expert medical opinion evidence. The Court of Appeal also observed that, in awarding damages for mental injury, the trial judge had erred by deciding the case on the basis of a claim that had not been pleaded or argued by Saadati. ... [read more]

Friday, June 02, 2017 @ 9:35 AM

Court upholds award for car crash victim against Ontario municipality Paul Pape

The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling that a municipality was negligent for failing to ensure a road was snow free and affirmed a $12 million damage award to a woman who lost control of her car and suffered devastating injuries in a crash. ... [read more]

Monday, May 29, 2017 @ 7:07 AM

HOSPITALS AND HEALTH CARE FACILITIES - Liability - Negligence

Appeal by the defendants from the trial judgment finding them liable for damages suffered by the respondent from a suicide attempt and from the award of future care costs. The respondent had been certified under the Mental Health Act and was suspected to be suicidal. He suffered a serious brain injury when he attempted to hang himself in the bathroom of the defendant hospital’s emergency ward. The trial judge found the hospital liable under the Occupiers Liability Act and in negligence for failing to take reasonable steps to either ensure that the bathroom design was changed to be ligature-proof or more easily monitored in advance of suicidal patients being allowed unmonitored access to it, or to institute policies to ensure that suicidal patients could not be in the bathroom unmonitored or uninterrupted for any length of time that could allow for a hanging approaching five minutes before rescue. The trial judge found that the nurses who were on duty in the unit at the time of the incident had failed to meet nursing standards of care in losing track of the respondent and allowing him uninterrupted access to the bathroom for at least five minutes. One nurse had also fallen below nursing standards in not knowing how to unlock the bathroom door, which added to the delay in getting to the respondent. In assessing damages, the trial judge adopted the total lifestyle approach. The appellants disputed the judge’s allowance of $43,000 per annum for the cost of a support worker to check on the respondent in his apartment two times per day. The appellants argued no medical expert suggested the four hours per day of support care awarded by the trial judge. At the time of trial, the respondent was working part-time and able to take public transit. ... [read more]