On January 22, 2015 the Ontario Court of Appeal released its
reasons in the case of Gyorffy v. Drury. Since
October 2003 plaintiffs in Ontario who seek an aware of general
damages for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident must
lead evidence from a qualified medical doctor with respect to their
alleged permanent and serious injuries. In addition
plaintiffs must "adduce evidence that corroborates the change
in function that is alleged to be a permanent and serious
impairment." [O.Reg461/96 s. 4.3(5)].
At the trial of this matter three treating doctors testified as
to the permanent and serious impairments they felt arose from the
accident. The plaintiff also testified to his ongoing
issues. No family members, co-workers or other lay witnesses
testified as to the plaintiff's condition before and after the
accident. The trial judge held that, although he found the
plaintiff to be credible, the plaintiff could not provide
corroborating evidence, and therefore the claim was
The majority of the Divisional Court held that the evidence that
needs corroboration under the regulation is the evidence of the
doctor who is providing the opinion as to there being a permanent
and serious impairment. The Divisional Court noted the
regulation does not specifically exclude the plaintiff from
provided that evidence. As such, testimony from the plaintiff
could be used to meet the requirements of the regulation.
On appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal the defendant argued
that the Divisional Court's interpretation of the regulation
"renders the corroboration requirement
irrelevant..."Corroborating evidence must be evidence from a
source independent of the witness whose evidence requires
corroboration. As the physician's evidence is invariably
based on facts the plaintiff relates to the physician, the
corroboration...cannot also come from the
The Court of Appeal rejected the above argument, and upheld the
majority decision of the Divisional Court. However, the Court
did take the time to comment that testimony from a plaintiff may
not always be sufficient, but rather will be fact specific to each
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).