Maher v. Kiric, 2025 ONSC 2327
Reading Time: 3 minutes (approx.)
By: Sarah Richard (Articled Clerk)
In October 2013 the Plaintiff was struck by a car while riding her bicycle, resulting in a broken wrist and finger alongside with injuries to the left side of her body and head. She later claimed that the accident led to long-term physical, cognitive, and psychological problems, including chronic pain, post-concussion syndrome, and various mental health issues. According to the Plaintiff, the accident was the starting point of a series of health problems which contributed to later falls that worsened her condition further.
The Defendant, the driver of the car, argued that the woman’s injuries were relatively minor and had fully healed within about six weeks. He claimed that her current symptoms were unrelated to the accident and were instead linked to pre-existing mental health issues and other incidents that occurred later, specifically a fall in April 2014.
The key legal question was whether the Plaintiff had sustained a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function as a result of the October 2013 accident, as required under ss. 267.5(3) and (5) of the Insurance Act.
The judge ultimately decided in favour of the Defendant, finding that the Plaintiff did not meet the legal threshold. The court concluded the Plaintiff had not shown a clear link between the accident and her ongoing issues. The medical records from around the time of the accident did not show signs of a concussion or other serious impairments, and the expert opinions she relied on were based mostly on her own account of what happened, which the court did not find reliable.
There were inconsistencies in the Plaintiff’s medical history and testimony. The court found that the defence experts presented a more credible explanation, concluding that the Plaintiff’s current symptoms were not caused by the crash. The court also pointed out that the Plaintiff had a history of mental health and substance use challenges before the accident, and there was no strong evidence that these had been made worse by the incident.
The court concluded that the Plaintiff had not met the legal threshold and her claims for compensation were dismissed. The court invited both sides to determine legal costs either by agreement or through written submissions.
