[1] This action arose out of a motor vehicle accident. The jury questions, as negotiated between trial counsel and accepted by the trial judge, did not oblige the jury to structure its award of damages in a manner that reflected the requirements of s. 267.8 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8. That section requires the trial judge to reduce jury damages awards for pecuniary losses by the amount of collateral benefits paid to the injured plaintiff. The defendant had the onus of proof regarding both the entitlement to these reductions and their amounts. The appellant submits the trial judge erred by reducing the jury’s awards for past and future attendant care, medical/rehabilitation, and housekeeping costs from $105,000 to nil, in the absence of clear evidence on the appropriate quantum of any reduction[1].
-
FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
-
FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education
-
FAIR – supporting auto accident victims through advocacy and education