The court upheld a jury verdict and emphasized the high standard required to overturn it
The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld a jury verdict that the appellant did not suffer a loss of competitive advantage in the workplace from a motor vehicle accident.
The dispute in Ali v. Irfan, 2024 ONCA 758 revolved around three central questions: whether the accident caused ongoing psychological or physical conditions, whether the appellant experienced a loss of competitive advantage, and what compensation should be awarded if the answer to the second question was affirmative. The jury found that while the appellant had suffered injuries, these did not lead to a loss of competitive advantage.
The appellant argued that the jury's answers were irreconcilable, claiming that accepting her ongoing condition logically implied a loss of competitive advantage. She also contended that the jury verdict was unreasonable, highlighting that the respondent did not present evidence to contradict her claims of impaired work capacity. However, the Court of Appeal rejected these arguments.
The court emphasized the high standard required to overturn a jury's verdict, citing established case law. It reiterated that a jury’s decision should be granted considerable deference when supported by some evidence. As per precedent, a verdict would only be set aside if it was "so plainly unreasonable and unjust" that no reasonable jury could have reached the same conclusion based on the evidence.
In this case, the court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s decision. It noted that the jury had the option to accept evidence indicating that the appellant’s pre-existing conditions and subsequent accidents might have contributed to her current situation. The jury was also free to reject the appellant’s claims of how the accident affected her teaching career, particularly in light of evidence from her employer suggesting no adverse impact.
The court also addressed the appellant’s claim that her evidence was unchallenged, pointing out that credibility was a key issue at trial. The appellant underwent thorough cross-examination, and the jury received proper instructions regarding credibility. The court noted that the appellant had not raised any concerns about the jury charge's correctness. Moreover, the appellant did not present medical evidence to substantiate her claims, and her employer’s testimony did not support her assertion of career disadvantages.
Finally, the court declined the appellant’s request to substitute its assessment of damages, citing credibility and causation issues present at trial.
