skip to main content
Back to Top


Oct 2, 2018

Ont. Sup. Ct. finds plaintiff in motor vehicle case has not proven a threshold impairment

Author Bevin Shores

Al-Radwan v. Wanless, 2018 ONSC 5464 was a threshold motion before Justice Ferguson following a jury trial in an action concerning the plaintiff’s claims for damages resulting from an August 2, 2012 motor vehicle accident.

The jury had awarded the plaintiff non-pecuniary general damages of $50,000.00 and “zero dollars under all other heads of damages” (para 1). The defendant brought a threshold motion, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to prove a threshold impairment.

In the result, Justice Ferguson concluded the plaintiff did not prove a threshold impairment.

The plaintiff, 35 years old at the time of the accident, came to Canada as a refugee and had PTSD as a result of detention and torture prior to coming to Canada. He also had previous complaints of neck pain and headaches. He was educated as an architectural technologist in Syria, and at the time of the accident was enrolled in English for Academic Purposes courses with the intention of competing an architectural technologist program and continuing this line of work in Canada. He received assistance from Ontario Works and worked part-time in maintenance and construction jobs.  

With respect to the plaintiff’s regular or usual employment or usual activities of daily living, Justice Ferguson noted, materially, at paragraphs 41 and 46:

“41.              The plaintiff did not have “regular or usual employment” in Canada at any time prior to the accident. At the time of the accident, he was on OW which did not result in any steady work. His statements to medical practitioners (including experts) about: (a) his work as “construction worker”; (b) his training as an architect and owning a renovation company; (c) his self-employment in the “construction trade”; and (d) his background as a “former architect” who was “looking for work in renovations” are not reliable.  The plaintiff did not submit any documentary evidence of his regular or usual employment. There were no lay witnesses called to support any statements made about his capacity to complete renovation/construction-type work.”


“46.              The plaintiff did not lead evidence about how his physical injuries substantially interfered with most of his usual activities of daily living. He confirmed during cross‑examination that he could tend to bathroom hygiene independently, could be alone at home without risk to his safety; and that he could dress himself. He could not identify any sport or recreation activity that he had to stop due to an accident-related injury. There was no information from any lay witnesses about the impact of the plaintiff’s physical impairments on his activities of daily living.”

As to the plaintiff’s experts, Justice Ferguson did not accept the evidence of either of the plaintiff’s experts, finding the plaintiff’s psychiatrist presented as an advocate (para 48), and that the plaintiff’s physiatrist’s “reports and testimony do not specifically address how the plaintiff’s physical impairments substantially interfere with his ability to continue his career training or his daily living” (para 50). 

Therefore, Justice Ferguson agreed “with the defendant that there is no acceptable opinion evidence of a physician trained for and experienced in the assessment of either a mental or psychological impairment caused by the accident. As such, the plaintiff has failed to meet the evidentiary requirements of O. Reg. 461/96 (amended)” (para 51).

Justice Ferguson also noted several problems with the plaintiff’s credibility at paragraph 55, including “lying to the bank in order to get a credit card,” “lying to his OW’s benefit worker about working (not working),” not disclosing his accident benefits settlement to ODSP, inconsistent reporting of medical problems to his treating doctors and experts, and failing to report income to Canada Revenue Agency.

In the result, Justice Ferguson concluded that the plaintiff had not met the threshold.

Al-Radwan v Wanless 2018onsc5464

Related Team

Bevan Shores

Bevin Shores

Email me

P: (905) 577-4050 ext 595 (905) 577-4050 ext 595

Hamilton (877) 858-8234 (877) 858-8234

Read Bio

Related Services:

Related BLAWGS


Ont. Sup. Ct. finds plaintiff has proven threshold impairment and assesses damages in motor vehicle accident case

Sheldon v Reyna, 2018 ONSC 5611, is a decision of Justice Williams in which Her Honour ruled on the issue of whether the plaintiff had proven a threshold impairment and assessed the plaintiff’s damages following the trial of the plainti......


Ont. Sup. Ct. grants defendant’s threshold motion in chronic pain case

Wray v. Pereira, 2018 ONSC 5662 was a threshold motion brought by the defendant following a jury trial in which the plaintiff had alleged chronic pain in his right knee as a result of a December 31, 2012 motor vehicle accident. Justice McKelvey ob......


Ont. Super. Ct. finds plaintiff's future inability to work can be considered in determining a threshold injury, and finds serious and permanent injury because of effect on employment activities

In O'Brien v. O'Brien, a mva action tried by a jury, Ontario Superior Court Justice McKelvey found the plaintiff, who sustained an ankle fracture in the accident, met the Insurance Act threshold, finding that the plaintiff "did suffer a permanent ......

The BLAWG on this website and the material published on it, including the links to other websites, are made available by the lawyer and law firm publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give the BLAWG's readers general information and a general understanding of the law, and not to provide specific legal advice. This BLAWG is for general informational purposes only, and use of this BLAWG does not create a Lawyer-Client Relationship. Hughes Amys LLP is a law firm and most of the information on the BLAWG relates to legal topics and cases. Hughes Amys LLP does not offer or dispense legal advice through this BLAWG or by e-mails directed to or from this site. By using the BLAWG, the reader agrees that the information on this BLAWG does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no lawyer-client or other relationship is created between the reader and Hughes Amys LLP or its lawyers. The BLAWG is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified lawyer. The information on the BLAWG may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While the BLAWG is revised on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. Any comments, views or opinions expressed at or through the BLAWG are intended to provide general commentary on the law and legal issues, and are not intended for or should be understood as being posted for any other purpose. The BLAWG should not be used as a substitute for securing appropriate legal advice from a licensed professional lawyer in respect of particular facts and circumstances. Please use your own good judgment before choosing to act on any information included in the BLAWG, doing so entirely at your own risk.
  • Canadian Lawyer - Top 10 Boutique 2017-18
  • The ARC Group
  • Best Lawyers 2017
  • Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory 2016

© 201​6-17 All rights reserved | Legal Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Accessibility