What cases fall below the minor injury threshold?

The minor injury threshold is meant to apply where injuries are not serious and permanent, and do not limit important daily functioning. The threshold will therefore apply where injured parties are capable of maintaining a similar lifestyle to the one they led prior to the accident.

Perez v. Pinto, 2013 ONSC 1243, [2013] OJ No 1348

The court found Ms. Perez’s impairment was not permanent, important, or serious. She failed to return to work post-accident, but was able to return to college. Her workplace attempted to contact her to return to work, and she never responded. The written decision states Ms. Perez had sustained modest injuries and exaggerated her symptoms.

Valentine v. Rodriguez-Elizalde, 2016 ONSC 3540, 2016 CarswellOnt 8792

The decision found that Ms. Valentine’s injuries were not serious enough to meet the threshold. She could perform most housekeeping tasks, and sporting activities. She had pain, but it was not beyond tolerable.

Kasap v. MacCallum, 2001 CanLII 7964, [2001] OJ No 1719 (QL) (ONCA)

The trial judge found that Mr. Kasap was not a credible witness and that the threshold had not been met. On appeal, Mr. Kasap questioned whether the trial judge should be following the jury’s lead when making the threshold determination. The written decision on appeal said the judge is entitled to make the threshold determination on their own and is not bound by the verdict of the jury.

McNamee v. Oickle, 2020 ONSC 2371

Ms. McNamee complained of an alcohol addiction, headaches, neck pain, and back pain following a motor vehicle accident. However, the judge found that her alcohol abuse diagnosis was unrelated to the accident, and that there were many other factors in her life contributing to her physical and psychological pain. Ms. McNamee’s claim failed on causation. She failed to prove the injuries which would have pushed her claim over the threshold were caused by the accident.

Mann v. Jefferson, 2019 ONSC 1107

The judge found Mr. Mann’s ability to do work around the house was impaired, but that his impairment was not serious enough to meet the threshold. The judge found the evidence provided by the doctors’ reports unreliable. The judge also found Mr. Mann’s complaints of his impairments were unreliable and inconsistent.

Nadarajah v. Aviva Canada Inc, 2017 ONSC 7522

The court found that Mr. Nadarajah failed to establish a substantial interference with his usual activities of daily living. He was in the same employment as he was prior to the accident.

Robichaud et al. v. Constantinidis et al., 2019 ONSC 5995, 2019 CarswellOnt 17381

The court found that Ms. Robichaud had not sustained a serious impairment. Her injuries were found to be permanent, but they did not rise to the level of seriousness to meet the threshold. There was no evidence her employer would not accommodate her if she wished to work more hours as a cashier.

Morgan v. Saquing, 2015 ONSC 2647

Mr. Morgan did not meet the “substantial impairment” requirement for the threshold because he continued to function effectively as a physical education teacher. There was no evidence of marital issues, and he remained active in his children’s activities. There was also no substantial interference with his usual daily activities.