Quote:
Originally Posted by fredr123
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...itutional.aspx
Nova Scotia's damage cap was ruled constitutional at first instance in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. You'll recall Alberta's Court of Queen's Bench found the opposite result here. That matter is yet to be heard before the Court of Appeal.
|
We should hear from the Alta C.A. soon. Seems clearly unconstitutional to us.
NS case - headnote:
HELD: Applications dismissed. There was no basis to find a pre-existing stereotype or disadvantage related to motor vehicle accident claimants who suffered minor injuries. The statutory cap applied to all minor injuries and was not restricted solely to soft tissue injuries. The legislative scheme did not deny those accident victims who suffered minor injuries the right to pursue their pecuniary losses. Additionally, the fact that the legislative scheme did not cap the amount of non-pecuniary damages claimed by more seriously injured claimants militated against finding that those less seriously injured were stereotyped or discriminated. The impugned provision did not create a distinction based on gender, as both men and women who suffered minor injuries received non-pecuniary damages up to the cap of $2,500. The Limitation Regulations were not ultra vires the Insurance Act, as they were consistent with the legislation and the power to define expressions therein. McKinnon led no evidence to rebut expert medical testimony that post traumatic stress disorder was a physical injury in nature. No distinction was made with respect to her injury on the basis of a medical disability and accordingly her application was dismissed.
This part sticks out for me:
The legislative scheme did not deny those accident victims who suffered minor injuries the right to pursue their pecuniary losses.