Recent KLF Court Decisions
Trial Decisions
Mr. Graul was involved in a serious motor vehicle collision which caused him to suffer post-concussive syndrome, chronic pain, and psychological difficulties. Due to his injuries he was unable to return to his employment at the City of Guelph. Justice Lemon awarded general damages of $225,000, past income loss of $75,308, future income loss of $1,282,074, and future care costs of $735,092. The Court also ordered the Defendants to pay costs of $1,775,000 after a four week trial.
Ms. LeGree suffered a mild Traumatic Brain Injury, chronic pain, and psychological difficulties from a motor vehicle accident. She was able to work in an alternative occupation. Justice Fowler Byrne found that the client had suffered a permanent and serious impairment of an important physical, mental, and/or psychological function and awarded her $100,000.00 for general damages, $1,993.10 for special damages, and $143,560.78 for future health care costs.
Ms. Meade suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury, chronic pain, and severe psychological difficulties, overlayed on top of pre-existing impairments. She had an unclear career path, having missed time from work previously and having been in the process of starting up her own business. She also tried to work post-collision in a number of positions before going off work altogether years later. Justice Bale awarded her general damages of $200,000, past income loss of $93,541, future income loss of $473,670, and future care costs of $805,462.
Arbitration Decisions
Mr. Graul was involved in a serious motor vehicle collision which caused him to suffer post-concussive syndrome, chronic pain, and psychological difficulties. Due to his injuries he was unable to return to his employment at the City of Guelph. Justice Lemon awarded general damages of $225,000, past income loss of $75,308, future income loss of $1,282,074, and future care costs of $735,092. The Court also ordered the Defendants to pay costs of $1,775,000 after a four week trial.
In a case where Ms. Harland-Bettany slipped and fell while exiting her vehicle, Adjudicator Mazerolle of the Licence Appeal Tribunal found that for the purposes of accident benefits, she had been in a motor vehicle accident and was thus entitled to accident benefits.
In a case where Mr. Richards was sent his renewal notice prior to June 1, 2016 and the policy of insurance became effective after June 1, 2016, Adjudicator Lake of the Licence Appeal Tribunal held that it was the pre-2016 accident benefits that were available to our client, entitling him to significantly higher benefits.
Motion Decisions
In a motion to strike the jury due to the uncertainty of scheduling during COVID, Justice Miller considered the impact of delay on our client’s income loss, access to treatment, and additional legal costs. Justice Miller ordered that the jury notice be struck. The case was eventually heard in a trial by Justice Fowler Byrne.
In a last minute motion by defence counsel to transfer the action from Barrie to Brampton, the Judge considered the issue of delay in ruling that the action ought to remain in Barrie so as to preserve the trial date.
In a motion by defence counsel for further productions, Justice Dawe held that employment records more than three years prior to the collision do not need to be produced.
In a motion by defence counsel to transfer the action from Barrie to Toronto, the Judge considered an alternative location proposed by Kahler Law Firm in Newmarket was the most appropriate venue.
In a motion to add the uninsured motorist insurance coverage six years after the collision, Justice Sutherland held that the claim was one for breach of contract and thus the limitation period began to run based on the date of the notice letter and not the date of the collision.
In a post-Pre-Trial motion to transfer the action from Barrie to Toronto, Justice Wilson considered the delay in defence counsel raising the issue, including failing to raise the issue in their Statement of Defence, failing to object when the Trial Record was filed, and failing to raise the issue at the Pre-Trial.
In a motion to strike the jury notice due to the delays of COVID, Justice Casullo held that while there was concrete evidence of financial loss in the income loss claim due to the delays, she did not need to base her decision on financial prejudice alone. Delay in and of itself constituted prejudice.
Past case results cannot predict future case results.
