Case information

Legislation – Interpretation – Assignment to defendant’s insurer of future statutory accident benefits received by a plaintiff to prevent double recovery of damages awarded for motor vehicle accident – Whether a legislative reduction in the prejudgment interest rate on damages for non-pecuniary loss should apply in a trial heard two months later relating to an accident eight years earlier – When does a legislative amendment apply retrospectively in the absence of transition language – To what extent can a trial judge rely on the strict matching approach for the deduction for collateral benefits – Is Bannon v. McNeely (1998), 38 O.R. (3d) 659 (C.A.) still good law – Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, (the Act”), ss. 258.3(8.1) and 267.8.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant was catastrophically impaired when the tow truck he was driving was rear-ended by a vehicle driven and owned by the respondents Mr. Lackie and Mr. McPhail respectively. A jury awarded the applicant $2,931,006. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice made various rulings, two of which are relevant here. First, the trial judge ruled that prejudgment interest on the general damage award should be at the rate in effect prior to a legislative amendment to the Act, although this case was heard two weeks after the amendment was in force. Second, the Court determined that the applicant was not required to assign the future statutory accident benefits he received for medication, assistive devices and professional services to the respondents because the latter had not satisfied the strict matching requirements mandated by a common law rule. The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, holding that the legislative reduction to the rate of prejudgment interest on damages for non-pecuniary loss applied in this case and that the applicant was required to assign the future statutory accident benefits at issue. The new scheme under s. 267.8 of the Act only requires the court to match benefits that will be received after trial to broad, enumerated statutory categories.