Kamis, 30 April 2015
Rabu, 29 April 2015
Plaintiffs May Provide Corroborating Evidence of Threshold Impairment
The Insurance Act provides that in order to prove they meet threshold, plaintiffs must lead evidence from a qualified physician as well as “adduce evidence that corroborates the change in the function that is alleged to be a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.” The Court of Appeal recently held that plaintiffs may provide such corroboration themselves.
In Gyorffy v. Drury, 2015 ONCA 31 (C.A.), the plaintiff was in a car accident in November 2003. The defence brought a threshold motion while the jury was deliberating. The plaintiff and three physicians testified. The trial judge ruled the plaintiff's injuries has satisfied the impairment threshold, but held that the plaintiff could not provide the corroborating evidence that ss. 4.2 and 4.3 of Ontario Regulation 461/96 required. Accordingly, the action was dismissed.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, and the Court of Appeal dismissed a further appeal. It confirmed that a plaintiff can provide corroborating evidence in order to prove he or she meets threshold. The evidence that has to be corroborated is the physician's, not the plaintiff's.
Given the conclusion in Gyorffy, it is perhaps more important to focus on the quality of the evidence provided by the plaintiff rather than on the need for corroboration.
In Gyorffy v. Drury, 2015 ONCA 31 (C.A.), the plaintiff was in a car accident in November 2003. The defence brought a threshold motion while the jury was deliberating. The plaintiff and three physicians testified. The trial judge ruled the plaintiff's injuries has satisfied the impairment threshold, but held that the plaintiff could not provide the corroborating evidence that ss. 4.2 and 4.3 of Ontario Regulation 461/96 required. Accordingly, the action was dismissed.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, and the Court of Appeal dismissed a further appeal. It confirmed that a plaintiff can provide corroborating evidence in order to prove he or she meets threshold. The evidence that has to be corroborated is the physician's, not the plaintiff's.
Given the conclusion in Gyorffy, it is perhaps more important to focus on the quality of the evidence provided by the plaintiff rather than on the need for corroboration.
I enjoy interesting conversations
Art loving person with a passion for people. My heart is filled with much love which i spend on people in need. Painting and writing poems is a big part of me as well. My camera is an tool to show the world through my eyes. if you want to get to know me then just ask and say hello! I enjoy interesting conversations, I am a open minded person and i am always open for debate!
Selasa, 28 April 2015
Senin, 27 April 2015
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)