Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court found the accident caused physical injuries and tinnitus, but not the plaintiff’s depression, anxiety, or cognitive deficits. Damages were awarded for the accident-related losses.
The court assessed damages after an admitted-liability rear-end collision, awarding Ms. Zachariuk $301,233 for pain and suffering, income loss, future care, and special damages.
Appellant's functional limitations from progressive hearing loss, tinnitus and dizziness render him incapable of his prior work and other realistically available work (severe) but because reasonable treatment options remained (hearing aid reassessment, replacement hearing aids, possible cochlear implant) such that improvement was possible and the limitation could not be said to be long continued and of indefinite duration by the hearing date, the disability was not prolonged and the CPP disability pension is denied.
Source excerpt
The court awarded damages to a plaintiff injured in a rear-end collision, including future earning capacity, non-pecuniary loss, sick-leave loss, and future care.
The court found the motor vehicle accident caused chronic neck and back pain, headaches, sleep and mood disturbance, but not tinnitus, and awarded damages of $247,605.26.
The court found the collision caused temporary soft-tissue injuries and tinnitus, but most problems pre-existed. Damages were awarded on a limited basis.
A British Columbia personal injury judgment finding a rear-end collision caused chronic pain, fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue, with damages awarded across several heads.
The court held the defendant wholly liable for an intersection collision and awarded damages for permanent tinnitus, past income loss, future earning capacity, and special damages.
Personal injury trial arising from a hit-and-run collision; the court found vestibular injury, tinnitus, headaches and psychiatric harm, and awarded damages to the plaintiff.
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant raised the procedural fairness complaint at the first reasonable opportunity, the Review Tribunal considered the subjective evidence of tinnitus (including testimony, questionnaire and spouse evidence), interruptions and questioning style alone did not constitute a breach of natural justice, and the Tribunal reasonably inferred transferable skills from the appellant's education and work history, so no error of law or procedure requires overturning the decision.
Source excerpt
Explore more
