Gyorffy v. Drury, 2015 ONCA 31

JudgeLaskin, Rouleau and Epstein, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ontario)
Case DateJune 04, 2014
JurisdictionOntario
Citations2015 ONCA 31;(2015), 329 O.A.C. 220 (CA)

Gyorffy v. Drury (2015), 329 O.A.C. 220 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.029

Bella Gyorffy (plaintiff/respondent) v. Marion Drury (defendant/appellant)

(C58228; 2015 ONCA 31)

Indexed As: Gyorffy v. Drury

Ontario Court of Appeal

Laskin, Rouleau and Epstein, JJ.A.

January 22, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiff sued for damages suffered in a motor vehicle accident. Having decided that the plaintiff was credible and had suffered a "permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function", as defined by s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act and s. 4 of the Regulation, the trial judge nonetheless dismissed the action on the basis that the plaintiff had not met the requirement in s. 4.3(5) of the Regulation because he had not adduced any evidence, in addition to that of the physician, to corroborate the change in function alleged to be a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function. The plaintiff appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court, Cornell, J., dissenting, in a decision reported at 310 O.A.C. 233, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment below and granted judgment to the plaintiff in the amount of $9,000. The defendant appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Evidence - Topic 5202

Witnesses - Corroboration - General principles - When required - [See Insurance - Topic 5062.1 ].

Evidence - Topic 5203

Witnesses - Corroboration - General principles - What constitutes corroboration - [See Insurance - Topic 5062.1 ].

Insurance - Topic 5062.1

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Bodily injury and death benefits - Permanent impairment defined - The plaintiff sued for damages suffered in a motor vehicle accident - Having decided that the plaintiff was credible and had suffered a "permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function", as defined by s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act and s. 4 of the Regulation, the trial judge nonetheless dismissed the action on the basis that the plaintiff had not met the requirement in s. 4.3(5) of the Regulation because he had not adduced any evidence, in addition to that of the physician, to corroborate the change in function alleged to be a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function - At issue in the appeal was whether an injured person, the plaintiff, could provide the corroborating evidence - The majority of the Divisional Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal, holding that s. 4.3(5) of the Regulation did not preclude the plaintiff from providing corroborative evidence - The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the defendant's appeal - The plaintiff was entitled to corroborate his physician's evidence about his change in function.

Words and Phrases

Corroborates - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "corroborates" as used in s. 4.3(5) of the Insurance Act Regulations (Ont.), Reg. 461/96 - See paragraphs 1 to 44.

Cases Noticed:

Allstate Insurance Co. of Canada v. Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (2007), 84 O.R. (3d) 401; 2007 ONCA 61, refd to. [para. 30].

Meyer et al. v. Bright et al. (1993), 67 O.A.C. 134; 15 O.R.(3d) 129 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

Pepe v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (2011), 282 O.A.C. 157; 105 O.R.(3d) 794; 2011 ONCA 341, refd to. [para. 33].

Statutes Noticed:

Insurance Act Regulations (Ont.), Reg. 461/96, sect. 4.3 [para. 23].

Counsel:

Alan L. Rachlin, for the appellant;

Timothy H. Leigh-Bell, for the respondent.

Brian M. Cameron and Michelle Han, for the intervener Ontario Trial Lawyers Association.

This appeal was heard on June 4, 2014, by Laskin, Rouleau and Epstein, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Laskin, J.A., on January 22, 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Rules Relating to the Use of Admissible Evidence
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Evidence. Eighth Edition
    • 25 de junho de 2020
    ...Since presumptions of law and burdens of proof are closely linked, they will be discussed together in this chapter. 2 Gyorffy v Drury , 2015 ONCA 31 at para 25. THE L AW OF EVIDENCE 672 2. CORROBOR ATION AND DANGEROUS EVIDENCE 2.1) The Former Law of Corroboration At common law, certain kind......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Evidence. Eighth Edition
    • 25 de junho de 2020
    ...Gromley v Canada Permanent Trust Co, [1969] 2 OR 414 (HCJ) .....................208 Gyorffy v Drury, 2015 ONCA 31 .........................................................................671 Hallstone Products Ltd v Canada, 2004 CanLII 16272 (Ont SCJ) .................... 306 Table of Cases......
  • Legree v. Origlieri,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 19 de novembro de 2021
    ...function.  This corroboration can come from the Plaintiff themself, or their family member or employer:  Gyorffy v. Drury, 2015 ONCA 31, 123 O.R. (3d) 721, at para. [78]      Each case must be assessed on a case by case basis. The Plaintiff bears the onus ......
  • Plaintiff Can Provide Corroborating Evidence Of Change In Function
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 26 de janeiro de 2015
    ...comment that testimony from a plaintiff may not always be sufficient, but rather will be fact specific to each case. See Gyorffy v. Drury 2015 ONCA 31 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your spec......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 cases
  • Legree v. Origlieri,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 19 de novembro de 2021
    ...function.  This corroboration can come from the Plaintiff themself, or their family member or employer:  Gyorffy v. Drury, 2015 ONCA 31, 123 O.R. (3d) 721, at para. [78]      Each case must be assessed on a case by case basis. The Plaintiff bears the onus ......
  • Halley v. TTC, 2018 ONSC 6093
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 15 de outubro de 2018
    ...In exchange for limits on their right to sue injured persons receive enhanced accident benefits regardless of fault: see Gyorffy v Drury, 2015 ONCA 31. The Summary Judgment The Law [29]        Pursuant to Rule 20, summary judgment shall be granted where th......
2 firm's commentaries
  • Plaintiff Can Provide Corroborating Evidence Of Change In Function
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 26 de janeiro de 2015
    ...comment that testimony from a plaintiff may not always be sufficient, but rather will be fact specific to each case. See Gyorffy v. Drury 2015 ONCA 31 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your spec......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (January 19-23, 2015)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 2 de fevereiro de 2015
    ...was an arithmetical error, if any, the proper approach would have been to return to the motion judge for directions. Gyorffy v. Drury, 2015 ONCA 31 [Laskin, Rouleau and Epstein Counsel: A.L. Rachlin, for the appellant T.H. Leigh-Bell, for the respondent B.M. Cameron and M. Han, for the inte......
2 books & journal articles
  • Rules Relating to the Use of Admissible Evidence
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Evidence. Eighth Edition
    • 25 de junho de 2020
    ...Since presumptions of law and burdens of proof are closely linked, they will be discussed together in this chapter. 2 Gyorffy v Drury , 2015 ONCA 31 at para 25. THE L AW OF EVIDENCE 672 2. CORROBOR ATION AND DANGEROUS EVIDENCE 2.1) The Former Law of Corroboration At common law, certain kind......
  • Table of cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Law of Evidence. Eighth Edition
    • 25 de junho de 2020
    ...Gromley v Canada Permanent Trust Co, [1969] 2 OR 414 (HCJ) .....................208 Gyorffy v Drury, 2015 ONCA 31 .........................................................................671 Hallstone Products Ltd v Canada, 2004 CanLII 16272 (Ont SCJ) .................... 306 Table of Cases......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT