Woman alleges dizzy spell caused by bicycle accident made her fall down the stairs
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled that a motor vehicle accident did not cause a woman a permanent impairment of a physical, mental, or psychological function, which barred her claims for non-pecuniary loss and healthcare expenses.
In Maher v. Kiric, 2025 ONSC 2327, the plaintiff was riding her bicycle in a curb lane – shared by bicycles and cars – on College Street near Grace Street in Toronto in October 2013. The defendant, who was behind the plaintiff, drove past her. In the process, the mirror of the defendant’s vehicle clipped the plaintiff’s elbow and hand.
The plaintiff fell from her bicycle. She extended her left arm to break the fall, which fractured her left wrist and finger. She landed on the left side of her body and hit her head. The defendant brought the plaintiff to Mount Sinai Hospital and waited with her.
While the hospital records showed a head injury, they did not mention that the emergency room staff investigated or treated the plaintiff for a concussion or suspected her of having one. The defendant drove the plaintiff close to home after the hospital visit.
The plaintiff alleged that she started experiencing symptoms of light sensitivity, headaches, migraines, and dizziness when she arrived home and for days after the October 2013 accident. She took six weeks off from her part-time job until her fractured wrist recovered.
In April 2014, the plaintiff fell down a flight of stairs at home. She visited the Toronto Western Hospital and got a computerized tomography (CT) scan of her brain. She had a concussion but no brain bleed. She testified that she continued to have dizzy spells after the October 2013 accident and fell down the stairs due to a dizzy spell.
The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages for non-pecuniary losses, past income loss, future loss of earning capacity, past out-of-pocket expenses, and future healthcare expenses relating to the October 2013 accident.
In March, the Superior Court ruled that the plaintiff could rely on a demonstrative aid in her opening statement to the jury after removing “head injury” references from the chronological chart.
The defendant moved for an order stating that ss. 267.5(3) and (5) of Ontario’s Insurance Act, 1990, barred the plaintiff’s claim for healthcare expenses and non-pecuniary loss.
The jury found that the plaintiff failed to discharge her burden to prove she did not cause the accident under s. 193 of the Insurance Act. The jury awarded her $40,000 in damages, but nothing for healthcare expenses.
The Superior Court ruled that ss. 267.5(3) and (5) of the Insurance Act barred the plaintiff’s claims for non-pecuniary loss and healthcare expenses as she failed to satisfy the relevant test. First, the court agreed with the jury’s finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that she did not cause the accident under s. 193.
Next, the court addressed the three-step test in Meyer v. Bright, 1993 CanLII 3389 (ON CA). Namely, the trial judge should answer the following questions:
The court ruled that the accident was not the first domino in a chain of events that caused the plaintiff a permanent impairment of a physical, mental, or psychological function. Instead, the court found that the accident caused a wrist and finger fracture, which healed in around six weeks.
The court concluded that it did not need to determine the second and third steps of the analysis because the case failed to meet the first step.
The court disagreed with the plaintiff’s claim that a dizzy spell caused her April 2014 fall. The court saw little evidence other than the plaintiff’s testimony that she had any concussive symptoms after the October 2013 accident.
The court found the plaintiff’s evidence about the period between the October 2013 accident and the April 2014 fall unreliable. The court acknowledged that the plaintiff experienced multiple falls and concussions since April 2014 and noted that she testified that she would confuse some falls.
The court held that the expert opinions on the plaintiff’s side regarding the impact of the October 2013 accident on her condition relied on a flawed foundation, including her evidence that the October 2013 accident caused symptoms lasting until April 2014, which the court found untrue.
The court noted that none of the medical records until December 2013 referred to potential concussive symptoms, while the medical records closer to the October 2013 accident mentioned no concussive symptoms.
