Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Liability was admitted, narrowing the trial to causation and quantum of damages.

• The existence and impact of a mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) were heavily disputed.

• Plaintiff was found credible, with consistent testimony supported by lay and expert witnesses.

• Defendants argued the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages through treatment compliance.

• Expert evidence confirmed long-term psychological, cognitive, and physical impairments.

• The court accepted that the injuries significantly reduced the plaintiff’s ability to work and maintain relationships.

Facts and outcome of the case

Sandeep Poonia brought a personal injury claim following two motor vehicle accidents, the first in February 2017 and the second in December 2018, both of which were T-bone collisions. At the time of the first accident, he was a 42-year-old businessperson involved in real estate development, construction, and consulting. The defendants admitted liability for both accidents, focusing the trial on whether the accidents caused the alleged injuries and the proper assessment of damages.

The plaintiff alleged that the first accident caused a mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) as well as various psychological and physical impairments, including PTSD, depression, anxiety, chronic headaches, cognitive dysfunction, dizziness, and emotional dysregulation. He further claimed that the second accident exacerbated these existing conditions. The court was asked to determine whether these conditions were caused by the accidents and, if so, to what extent they affected his personal and professional life.

The plaintiff was found to be credible, and his testimony was corroborated by several family members, friends, and business associates who described significant post-accident changes in his personality, cognitive function, and ability to engage with others. His impairments were further substantiated by expert medical and psychiatric opinions. While some experts disputed the MTBI diagnosis, most agreed that the plaintiff exhibited symptoms consistent with brain injury and psychological trauma. The plaintiff's occupational therapists and treating professionals also observed and documented his reduced capacity to function independently at work and home.

The defendants acknowledged some injuries but contested the existence of a brain injury and the extent of the plaintiff’s losses. They argued that the plaintiff’s pre-existing health issues contributed to his symptoms and that his business losses were speculative. The court rejected these arguments, concluding that the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the first accident and aggravated by the second. It accepted that his impairments were ongoing and significantly affected his ability to work and manage personal relationships. The plaintiff’s work capacity was found to be limited to approximately 2.5 to 3 hours per day, with heavy reliance on an employee to manage communications and operations.

The court awarded the plaintiff a total of $3,227,480.40 in damages, subject to statutory deductions. This included $220,000 in non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering, $964,800 for past loss of income earning capacity, and $1,470,000 for future loss of income capacity. The court also awarded $105,197.35 in special damages for out-of-pocket medical and related expenses and $467,483.05 for the cost of future care. While the award was lower than what the plaintiff claimed, it reflected the court’s acceptance of the seriousness and permanence of the injuries, and its rejection of the defence that the plaintiff’s losses were exaggerated or inadequately mitigated. The court found that the injuries had a devastating impact on the plaintiff’s quality of life, career trajectory, and close relationships.