In Trieu v. Aubin, 2025 ONSC 1141, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a plaintiff’s personal injury claim arising from a 2015 motor vehicle collision, finding that although the plaintiff suffered a permanent impairment, it did not meet the statutory threshold of seriousness under the Insurance Act. This decision highlights the evidentiary burden plaintiffs face when pursuing damages for chronic but non-catastrophic injuries, especially where there is limited interference with day-to-day life.
Background
The plaintiff was involved in a T-bone collision on March 3, 2015. He was wearing a seatbelt, did not lose consciousness and declined ambulance assistance. That evening, he went to the emergency room and was diagnosed with soft tissue injuries. Within a week, he began physiotherapy, completing approximately 30 sessions and regaining full range of motion within several months.
Over the following year, the plaintiff continued to report intermittent lower back pain, described as radiating into his thigh approximately 70 percent of the time. Imaging revealed mild, age-appropriate degenerative disc changes. He attended a pain clinic briefly but stopped active treatment by 2017. The plaintiff received a statutory accident benefits settlement of approximately $4,500 in 2018.
Despite ongoing complaints of pain, the plaintiff completed university on time, ran small businesses, worked in the family restaurant, traveled, married, had a child and resumed life independently following a marital separation. He did not seek further treatment for collision-related symptoms between 2017 and July 2024.
Threshold Motion
As a result, the defendant brought a threshold motion arguing that the plaintiff’s injuries did not meet the threshold under section 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.
Justice S. Bale found that the plaintiff had established the permanence of his condition. However, the court concluded that the impairment was not serious within the meaning of the Act.
Although the plaintiff continued to experience some degree of discomfort, the court noted that he had:
- Maintained full-time university studies and graduated on schedule;
- Continued to work in various roles and manage his own businesses;
- Engaged in parenting and domestic responsibilities;
- Traveled internationally and maintained relationships;
- Used only over-the-counter medication and medical cannabis;
- Not returned to formal treatment for nearly seven years.
Justice S. Bale emphasized that for an impairment to be serious, it must substantially interfere with the person’s ability to perform essential tasks of employment, education or daily living. On the facts, the court found no such interference. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claim for general damages was dismissed.
Costs
The defendant had served two Rule 49 offers: first, a dismissal without costs, and later, a dismissal with $35,000 in partial indemnity costs. The plaintiff rejected both offers.
The court awarded the defendant $150,000 in partial indemnity costs. In doing so, Justice S. Bale noted that:
- The plaintiff’s claim had limited merit;
- The defendant made reasonable, time-sensitive offers;
- The plaintiff’s refusal to accept the offers prolonged litigation unnecessarily.
Key Takeaways
1. Threshold remains a significant hurdle. Even permanent symptoms may fall short if they do not materially affect daily life or work capacity.
2. Demonstrable impact is essential. Courts will look for objective evidence of how an impairment interferes with employment, education or essential activities — not merely the existence of pain.
3. Cost consequences are real. Timely and reasonable settlement offers, if rejected, can lead to significant cost awards against the plaintiff, even in relatively modest claims.
4. Soft-tissue injury claims require strategic assessment. Practitioners should carefully evaluate the likelihood of success at trial in light of medical records, treatment history and functional limitations.
