Stephen v. Baker, 2026 NSSC 112
Written by: Sarah Richard
Reading time: 4 minutes (approx.)
The Plaintiff, Wallace Stephen, was involved in two motor vehicle accidents approximately 3 months apart and suffered chronic injuries. The two actions were heard together. At the time of the trial, the Plaintiff continued to suffer from chronic pain and was diagnosed with somatic symptom disorder (SSD).
Defendant Irene Baker passed away before trial, and therefore, the claim named her estate representative.
The court established that in the first accident the Plaintiff’s vehicle was stationary in its lane behind the stop line when Mrs. Baker turned left too tightly and hit the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Therefore, the Baker Defendants were found fully liable for the first accident. Defendant Amber Seretha Gerrard admitted liability for the second accident. The court held that the Defendants were equally liable for the Plaintiff’s damages,
Based on extensive expert medical evidence, the court concluded that the Plaintiff did not meet the criteria for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). However, the court concluded that the Plaintiff exacerbated previous musculoskeletal and spinal issues, and developed chronic pain, anxiety and depression, and met the criteria for a diagnosis of SSD.
The trial judge had significant credibility concerns with several individuals, including the Plaintiff, lay witnesses, and certain experts. Mr. Hill, a lay witness and business partner of the Plaintiff, was seen as biased in favor of the Plaintiff and prone to exaggeration. Experts on both sides were viewed as acting more as advocates and less as neutral experts.
The biggest credibility concern related to the Plaintiff. His presentation at trial, during which he appeared to be in severe pain, was inconsistent with surveillance footage which showed him moving freely and engaging in activities without discomfort. When being questioned by defence counsel, the Plaintiff’s demeanor changed compared to when he was being questioned by his own counsel. Overall, the credibility findings significantly weakened the Plaintiff’s case, particularly regarding the severity of his symptoms and limitations.
Factors including the improvement of his condition, his advanced age, findings regarding credibility of the Plaintiff and various experts, and various offsets such as Section B and CPP disability resulted in an overall award of $201,112.71.
