Introduction

In Ontario, the “serious impairment” threshold under the Insurance Act serves as a critical determinant for claimants seeking non-pecuniary damages following motor vehicle accidents. This threshold mandates that an injured party must demonstrate a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function. As a mediator, I observe firsthand how this legal standard influences both litigation strategies and settlement discussions.

Recent case law has further clarified the application of this threshold, offering valuable insights for practitioners and claimants alike.

Understanding the Threshold

Section 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, stipulates that a person injured in a motor vehicle accident cannot recover damages for pain and suffering unless they have sustained:

• Permanent serious disfigurement; or
• Permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function.

The interpretation of what constitutes a “serious impairment” has been the subject of extensive judicial consideration.

Foundational Principles from Established Case Law

Before delving into recent decisions, it’s essential to understand the foundational principles established by earlier cases:

1. Meyer v. Bright, 1993 ONCA 3389

This seminal case established a three-part test to determine if an injury meets the threshold:

1. Has the injured person sustained a permanent impairment of a physical, mental, or psychological function?
2. Is the function that is permanently impaired important?
3. Is the impairment of the important function serious?

Reference: Meyer v. Bright, 1993 ONCA 3389, paras. 12-16.

2. Pastore v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2012 ONCA 642

The Ontario Court of Appeal held that a single impairment can be sufficient to meet the threshold if it substantially interferes with the person’s ability to carry on a normal life. The case emphasized the qualitative assessment of the impairment’s impact.

Reference: Pastore v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2012 ONCA 642, paras. 45-50.

3. Liu v. 1226071 Ontario Inc., 2016 ONSC 3366

In this case, the court found that the plaintiff’s chronic pain and psychological impairments met the threshold, as they significantly affected her ability to engage in pre-accident activities, including work and social interactions.

Reference: Liu v. 1226071 Ontario Inc., 2016 ONSC 3366, paras. 28-33.

4. Malfara v. Vukojevic, 2015 ONSC 78

This case provided a refined test for the threshold, focusing on whether the impairment is permanent, serious, and affects an important function. The court emphasized the need for objective medical evidence and the impact on the plaintiff’s daily life.

Reference: Malfara v. Vukojevic, 2015 ONSC 78, paras. 15-20.

Recent Judicial Interpretations

Several recent decisions from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice have provided further guidance on the application of the serious impairment threshold:

5. Davis v. NG, 2024 ONSC 6159

In this case, the plaintiff sustained a mild traumatic brain injury as a result of a motorcycle versus motor vehicle collision. Prior to the accident, she was extremely active, sociable, and skilled at her job. Following the accident, she suffered persistent post-concussion symptoms significantly impacting her daily functioning. The court held that the plaintiff met the threshold, emphasizing that the impairment’s effect on daily life, not just employment, is a critical consideration.

Reference: Davis v. NG, 2024 ONSC 6159, para. 24.

6. Trieu v. Aubin, 2025 ONSC 1141

Here, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed as the court found no evidence of a permanent serious impairment. The plaintiff had returned to normal activities and work, and the court emphasized the importance of objective medical evidence in establishing the threshold.

Reference: Trieu v. Aubin, 2025 ONSC 1141, para. 18.

7. Osmani v. State Farm, 2023 ONSC 5438

In this decision, the court reiterated that the plaintiff bears the onus of proving a permanent serious impairment. The plaintiff’s subjective complaints were insufficient without corroborating medical evidence demonstrating the impairment’s permanence and seriousness.

Reference: Osmani v. State Farm, 2023 ONSC 5438, para. 30.

8. Ramcharran v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2023 ONSC 3698

The court concluded that the plaintiff’s injuries met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act. The plaintiff’s pain and decreased grip strength were found to be permanent and serious, substantially interfering with his ability to continue employment as a meat cutter.

Reference: Ramcharran v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2023 ONSC 3698, paras. 22-25.

9. Stewart v. Blaschuk, 2024 ONSC 313

The plaintiff, a 70-year-old cab driver, suffered a shoulder injury requiring surgery and chronic low back pain, preventing his return to work. The court found that he had sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function, meeting the threshold.

Reference: Stewart v. Blaschuk, 2024 ONSC 313, paras. 30-35.

10. Moustakis v. Agbuya, 2023 ONSC 6012

The plaintiff suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairment as a result of a motor vehicle collision. Despite pre-existing psychological issues, the jury awarded general damages of $100,000, and the subsequent threshold motion was dismissed.

Reference: Moustakis v. Agbuya, 2023 ONSC 6012, paras. 40-45.

Implications for Mediation

From a mediation standpoint, these cases highlight the importance of comprehensive medical documentation and the consideration of how impairments affect various aspects of a claimant’s life. Mediators must be attuned to the nuances of each case, recognizing that the threshold assessment extends beyond employment capabilities to include social, recreational, and daily activities.

Understanding the evolving judicial landscape aids in facilitating informed discussions and realistic expectations during mediation sessions.

Conclusion

The serious impairment threshold continues to be a pivotal factor in Ontario motor vehicle accident claims. Recent case law underscores the necessity for claimants to provide robust medical evidence and to articulate the comprehensive impact of their injuries. As a mediator, staying abreast of these developments is essential to guide parties toward equitable resolutions.

Disclaimer: This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For personalized legal guidance, please consult a qualified lawyer.