Ottawa car accidents and meeting the threshold provided for in the Ontario Insurance Act
In the recent case of Jennings v. Latendresse, 2012 ONSC 6982 (S.C.J), the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident. Her vehicle was rear-ended by the defendant. The trial proceeded before a jury and the defendant brought a threshold motion as soon as the jury retired to consider its verdict. The plaintiff alleged she was injured. Her injury complaints were daily headaches, pain in the right side of her lower jaw, painful neck and shoulders with tingling down the arms, sore upper back, mid back and lower back with pain, aches, sore knees and calves and whole body pain.
There was no dispute that the plaintiff suffered from chronic pain. The main issue in the case involved what caused the plaintiff’s medical condition and injuries and whether or not the condition from a medical standpoint was permanent.
In the Ontario Court of Appeal decision of Lento v. Castaldo (1993) 15 O.R. (3d) 129, the court set out the questions that must be considered in determining whether or not a plaintiff who is injured in a car accident falls within one of the statutory exemptions:
1. Has the injured person sustained a permanent impairment of a physical, mental or psychological function?
2. If yes, is the function which is permanently impaired an important one?
3. If yes, is the impairment of the important function serious?
In reviewing the facts of the case in Jennings v. Latendresse, and considering the motion filed by the defendant, the court noted that the plaintiff’s pre-collision medical history show that she has significant medical issues which interfere with her ability to work and to function prior to the motor vehicle accident. Her employment as a debt recovery officer was stressful for the plaintiff and caused her anxiety. She had been diagnosed previously with chronic anxiety and was prescribed medication for the condition. The court also noted that after the motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff experienced stress from several non-board vehicle related sources including ongoing issues with her mother, ongoing issues with her son and the involvement of CAS. The court concluded that notwithstanding the motor vehicle collision, the plaintiff would’ve continued to face the above stresses in life. As a result, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not meet the test as set out in the insurance act and as particularly raised in Lento v. Castaldo.
As car accident lawyers, we are very mindful of the developing case law in relation to the ability of persons injured in motor vehicle accidents claim damages in tort. It is important in all personal injury actions and in particular in car accident cases that your injury lawyer is very familiar with the developing cases which affect car accident victims rights to claim compensation. Motor vehicle law is extremely complex and only experienced lawyers can properly assess liability issues and damages.
To learn more about your rights and interests as a victim of a car accident in Ottawa or anywhere else in Ontario, contact one of our lawyers free of charge at 613-315-4878.
This brief case summary is provided for information purposes only and is not legal advice.
Ottawa car accident lawyer
Marc-Nicholas Quinn
613-315-4878
Free Consultations
No Fee Until You Win