The trial of Ali v. Irfan occurred in May of 2023. The sole issue at trial was whether the plaintiff had sustained a loss of competitive advantage in the workplace as a result of injuries arising from the accident. The jury was asked to determine three questions:
1) Did the accident cause or contribute to a psychological or physical condition that the [appellant] continues to suffer from as of today?
2) If the answer to question one is yes, has the [appellant] suffered a loss of competitive advantage as a result of the accident?
3) What compensation, if any, should be paid for that loss of competitive advantage claim?
The jury returned a verdict finding that while the plaintiff had suffered some psychological or physical injuries from the accident, she had not sustained a loss of competitive advantage. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed with costs payable to the defendant.
The plaintiff appealed arguing that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable and/or that the answers to questions #1 and #2 were inconsistent.
In upholding the trial decision, the court reaffirmed the well-established appellate standard of review of a jury verdict. The court stated at para. 6:
“Where there is some evidence to support a jury’s verdict, a high degree of deference will be granted and a verdict will not be set aside even if the jury could have arrived at a different determination based on the evidence: Lazare v. Harvey, 2008 ONCA 171, at para. 29; Kerr v. Loblaws Inc., 2007 ONCA 371, at paras. 4, 53. In McCannell v. McLean, 1937 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1937] S.C.R. 341, at p. 343, the Supreme Court stated that, ‘the verdict of a jury will not be set aside as against the weight of the evidence unless it is so plainly unreasonable and unjust as to satisfy the Court that no jury reviewing the evidence as a whole and acting judicially could have reached it.’”
The court further found that the jury’s answers to the questions were not inconsistent.
