No errors found in trial judge's jury questions or instructions in injury case
The Ontario Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal of a judgment awarding an injured man over $1.5 million in damages arising from a bus accident and refused to order a new trial or adjust the damages amount.
In Meldazy v. Nassar, 2025 ONCA 590, the respondent was stalled in heavy traffic in January 2016 when a Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus rear-ended his pick-up truck. He said the accident led to back and neck injuries, anxiety, depression, chronic pain, panic attacks, and PTSD symptoms.
In September 2017, a sedan rear-ended the respondent’s truck. In July 2021, an Uber vehicle trying to pull out of a parking spot struck his truck’s side while he was driving on Roxborough Road. He said these two motor vehicle accidents only temporarily aggravated his injuries from the bus accident.
The appellants – TTC and the bus driver – admitted negligence and liability for the bus accident at the trial’s opening, in the jury’s absence.
In April 2024, Justice Loretta Merritt of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury, awarded the respondent damages of more than $1.5 million arising from the bus accident.
On appeal, the appellants alleged that the trial judge failed to put specific questions they proposed before the jury and made errors in discussing the evidence and instructing the jury on past income loss in her jury charge.
Appeal grounds failed
The Court of Appeal for Ontario rejected the appeal and ordered the appellants to pay the respondent’s appeal costs fixed at $30,000, as agreed, including disbursements and harmonized sales tax. The appeal court rejected the appellants’ grounds of appeal.
First, regarding their argument that the trial judge failed to permit their causation question, the appeal court ruled that the jury question asked, jury charge, and jury instructions together clarified that the jury could award the respondent damages only if they determined that his alleged injury would not have occurred but for the appellants’ negligence.
The appeal court noted that the judge made jury instructions clarifying the “but for” causation test the respondent had to meet, and stated in her jury charge the appellants’ position that the jury verdict should award zero damages for physical or psychological injuries.
Second, the appeal court held that the judge did not err in rejecting the appellants’ proposed jury questions regarding apportioning damages among the respondent’s three accidents, upon finding these questions flawed and complex.
The appeal court noted that the judge explained that adopting the respondent’s proposed, more straightforward question and providing proper jury instructions addressing related issues could appropriately deal with the damages issue.
According to the appeal court, although the appellants relied on Hicks v. Cooper, (1973), 1. O.R. (2d) 221, as the proper model for jury questions in cases with successive motor vehicle accidents, they proposed questions that failed to follow this model.
About the jury instructions issue, the appeal court said the appellants expressly abandoned this ground in their appeal factum and made no challenge against the judge’s jury instruction that the appellants were “only liable for injuries attributable to the TTC bus accident.”
Third, the appeal court rejected the appellants’ concerns about the judge’s draft summary of the respondent’s evidence and its effects on the jury’s assessment of his credibility and reliability. The appeal court saw no error in the judge’s treatment of this issue.
Fourth, the appeal court concluded that the judge did not err by failing to instruct the jury to disregard the respondent’s expert’s evidence regarding past income loss. The appeal court upheld the jury’s decision to award $90,000 for past income loss upon assessing the evidence.
