Will I Automatically Receive Compensation After a Car Accident in Ontario?

By Eddie Wiley

Personal Injury Lawyer

Hillier & Hillier Personal Injury Lawyers

No. Being involved in a car accident does not automatically entitle you to compensation. You should be cautious of any lawyer that guarantees you will receive compensation simply because you were involved in a car accident.

You must still prove the essential elements of your claim, which include:

• Negligence: the other driver breached the standard of care and was at fault for the accident.

• Causation: you must prove that the accident caused your injuries, which resulted in damages.

• Damages: you must prove the damages you claim, which may include pain and suffering, income loss, housekeeping and home maintenance expenses, and medical expenses.  

The burden is on the plaintiff to produce evidence to prove their claim.

As well, motor vehicle accident cases have additional rules that do not apply in other types of cases.

First, you must prove that you sustained a serious and permanent impairment of an important psychological, mental, or physical function to recover damages for pain and suffering and health-care expenses. This is known as the “threshold test.” The trial judge determines whether this statutory threshold is met.

Second, there is a statutory deductible of $47,913.01 that generally applies to awards for pain and suffering of $159,708.71 or less as of 2026.

These rules are intended to deter claimants from pursuing small and minor claims and have negatively impacted numerous plaintiffs’ cases.

Many individuals incorrectly believe that being involved in an accident for which they are not at fault should entitle them to damages regardless of the severity of their injuries. They feel that they should be compensated simply because the other driver caused the accident. This is a myth, partly perpetuated by television shows depicting individuals obtaining large settlements from minor fender benders. In reality, individuals who suffer minor injuries in a car accident should seriously consider whether to proceed with a lawsuit, as doing so may result in a financially disastrous outcome. 

Below are nine recent decisions relating to car accident cases in which plaintiffs experienced unsuccessful or financially damaging trial outcomes. In some cases, plaintiffs were ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to the defendant for legal costs. These decisions are not intended to scare future plaintiffs from pursuing car accident cases, but rather serve as a reminder that these cases are far from a “sure thing” even where the other driver was at fault. This article is also intended to educate prospective clients about the risks of litigation and proceeding to trial.

Please note that Hillier & Hillier did not act for any of the plaintiffs in the following cases.

1. Rejecting the Defendant’s Low Offer and Obtaining a Disastrous Trial Verdict

Cairns v. Ellis, 2025 ONSC 2303, involved a jury trial relating to a car accident from January 6, 2016, which resulted in a disastrous outcome for the plaintiff. The jury found the defendant liable for the accident. However, the jury rejected the plaintiff’s theory of the case that she sustained physical and psychological injuries and awarded only $17,500 for general damages for pain and suffering and $1,280 for loss of past income. Both awards were reduced to $0 by operation of the statutory deductible and deductions for other collateral benefits.

As the plaintiff recovered nothing and was unsuccessful after a jury trial, the Court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant $185,000 for legal costs and disbursements.

Prior to trial, the defendant offered the plaintiff $15,243.91, which she rejected. To make matters worse, the plaintiff unsuccessfully appealed to the Divisional Court and was ordered to pay an additional $20,000 to the defendants for the costs of the appeal (Cairns v. Ellis, 2025 ONSC 1762). The plaintiff could have ended the litigation and received a $15,243.91 offer prior to trial, but instead was ordered to pay $205,000 to the defendants for costs, a swing of approximately $220,000.

The trial judge also identified significant weaknesses in the plaintiff’s case.

2. Low-Speed Impact, Little Damage to Vehicle, Failure to Establish Causation, and a Poor Trial Verdict

In Addai v. Parkinson, 2024 ONSC 6122, the plaintiff sued the defendant following a motor vehicle accident on August 25, 2018, when the defendant rear-ended the plaintiff at a red light. The damage to the plaintiff’s vehicle consisted of a few dents to the back of the vehicle and repairs cost $1,512.56, including work to address pre-existing damage.  The defendant testified that she was stopped behind the plaintiff and that her foot slipped off the brake, and she rolled into the plaintiff’s vehicle. The defendant described the accident as a “fender bender.”

At the time of trial, six years later, the plaintiff claimed to experience ongoing pain in his back, neck, migraines, headaches, dental problems, and left wrist pain.

The plaintiff had pre-existing issues in many of the above areas and there were significant concerns as to whether the above impairments were caused by the subject accident.

The jury awarded the plaintiff nothing. The trial judge also found that the plaintiff failed to establish that he sustained a serious and permanent impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function, which would have disentitled the plaintiff to compensation for pain and suffering and medical expenses had the jury awarded amounts for these heads of damage.

The trial judge invited the defendant to provide submissions as to her legal costs of the trial. It is unknown how much the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant for legal costs.

3. Credibility is Key in Chronic Pain Cases – No Credibility? No Recovery

In Castro v. Chen, 2024 ONSC 6584, the plaintiff sued the defendant following a motor vehicle accident that occurred on November 28, 2018. The defendant admitted to being at fault for the accident and the sole issue for the judge was what damages the plaintiff was entitled to, if any.

At trial six years later, in 2024, the plaintiff claimed that she injured her back, neck, hands, left foot and leg, shoulders, and jaw in the accident. She also claimed psychological injuries.

The trial judge found that the plaintiff was not a credible witness, which had a major impact upon her claim and ability to recover damages.

The trial judge noted that the plaintiff initially denied attending the hospital for pre-accident back pain five days before the subject accident and only admitted to doing so when confronted with medical records documenting this attendance.

She also settled her accident benefits claim from which she received funds for future treatments but, upon receiving the settlement funds, did not continue treatments.

The plaintiff also completed a form indicating that she had full functional abilities for the purpose of obtaining employment. She completed an application for EI benefits and for the same period indicated that she was off work due to her injuries and that she had limited functional abilities.  This inconsistency had a significant impact on her credibility as a witness and the trial judge stated: “I find that she is willing to say whatever is necessary to support her goals.”

The plaintiff also maintained that she never had jaw pain before the accident despite being confronted with medical records from her dentist suggesting otherwise.

Most of the plaintiff’s experts’ opinions regarding her functional limitations relied upon her subjective reports. The trial judge rejected these opinions as he did not believe the plaintiff’s claims regarding her functional impairments.  

Without even needing to rely on the opinions of the defence experts, the trial judge found that the plaintiff did not sustain a threshold injury and was therefore not entitled to claim general damages for pain and suffering or for medical care expenses. The trial judge also rejected her income loss claim as she continued working after the accident and did not believe her evidence regarding her functional impairments. For the same reason, he rejected her claim for housekeeping assistance as well.

The plaintiff failed to recover any damages in this case, and the trial judge invited the defendant to provide submissions with respect to legal costs.

4. A Lack of Credibility Plagues Another Plaintiff’s Case

In Grujic v. Fine, 2024 ONSC 3811, the plaintiff sued the defendant following a car accident on December 7, 2013. The plaintiff attempted to cross Yonge Street, not at a pedestrian crosswalk, and made it halfway across the street and stopped at the yellow line dividing traffic to wait for traffic to clear. At this time, she was struck by the defendant’s mirror.

At the trial eleven years later in 2024, the plaintiff alleged that she experienced ongoing chronic pain to her neck, lower back, upper back, both shoulders, right foot pain, headaches, and bilateral TMJ pain. She also claimed to have sustained a mild traumatic brain injury. She claimed to experience functional limitations due to these injuries. She produced a chronic pain specialist and a neurologist at trial to support her claims.

However, the evidence suggested that the plaintiff’s functional limitations were not as significant as she claimed. In 2014, the year after the accident, she attended concerts, dinners with friends, social events, weddings, and other gatherings. She travelled to India in 2014, Australia in 2015, and then to Morocco and Ibiza.

She also earned a significant income in the years after the accident, and particularly in 2023 when she earned $127,508.37. She moved to Spanish, Ontario, in 2023 and would drive four hours to Toronto for certain social events.

Her own experts admitted to not being aware of her functional abilities described above and admitted that they might have reconsidered their opinions regarding her disability had they been. Further, the plaintiff was involved in two accidents prior to the subject accident, and two accidents thereafter.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff was not credible and that she exaggerated her impairments. Further, if she suffered any functional impairments, they were not caused by the subject accident but other events and car accidents.

The jury appears to have accepted the defendant’s argument.

The jury awarded the plaintiff $40,000 for general damages only, which were reduced to zero by the statutory deductible ($46,053.20 as of 2024) such that the plaintiff did not recover any damages following this nine-day jury trial.

The judge was equally unimpressed by the plaintiff’s claim and found that she did not sustain a threshold injury such that she was not entitled to claim general damages for pain and suffering, or health care expenses had the jury even awarded amounts for these heads of damages.

Finally, the jury also found the plaintiff 60% at fault for the accident for crossing a busy street and not at a pedestrian crosswalk. Any recoverable damages would therefore have been reduced by 60% to reflect her contributory negligence. For more information on contributory negligence, click here. 

It is unknown how much the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant for legal costs.

5. Minor Fractures Do Not Necessarily Result in Compensation

In Maher v. Kiric, 2025 ONSC 2327, the plaintiff was riding her bicycle on October 28, 2013, when she was clipped by the side mirror of the defendant’s vehicle. The plaintiff fell to the ground on her outstretched left arm and fractured her left wrist and left middle finger. 

At the trial almost 12 years later in 2025, she claimed to have sustained serious psychological injuries and post-concussion syndrome and produced four medical experts to support her claims.

The plaintiff returned to work as a waitress six weeks after the accident.

The defendants retained their own experts who believed that her orthopaedic injuries to her wrist and left finger had fully healed within four to six weeks with no ongoing complications. The defendant’s psychiatric expert opined that her psychological injuries pre-existed the accident and stemmed from an assault that occurred years before the accident. The defendant’s neurological expert opined that her post-concussion syndrome was mild and likely caused by the plaintiff’s six subsequent falls down stairs.  

The jury awarded the plaintiff $40,000 for general damages for pain and suffering, which was reduced to $0 by the application of the statutory deductible. The jury awarded nothing for income loss and health care expenses such that the plaintiff failed to recover any compensation after the four-week jury trial.

As well, the judge found that she did not meet the threshold test, which required her to prove that she sustained a serious and permanent impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function.

As the plaintiff failed to recover anything for damages, the judge invited the parties to make costs submissions. It is unknown how much the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant in legal costs.

6. Difficulties in Proving Causation Where there is Significant Overlap Between Accident-Related and Pre-Existing Injuries

In Ingratta v. McDonald, 2024 ONSC 371, the plaintiff was driving her vehicle on February 11, 2018, when she was t-boned by the defendant.  The plaintiff was 39 years old at the time of the accident.

She allegedly sustained soft tissue injuries to her cervical spine and lumbar spine because of the accident, as well as driving anxiety and memory and concentration issues.

However, she also had an extensive pre-accident history, which included lower back pain, neck pain, and psychiatric impairments. Causation and the degree of her injuries and impairments were in dispute.

Justice Macfarlane assessed her general damages for pain and suffering at $50,000, which would have been reduced to $3,946.80 by the statutory deductible ($46,053.20 as of 2024), and awarded no other damages. However, Justice Macfarlane also found that she did not sustain a serious and permanent impairment of an important psychological, physical, and mental function, such that she was not entitled to receive the $3,946.80 that he awarded for general damages for pain and suffering.

Justice Macfarlane ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s legal costs, although the exact amount is unknown.

7. Significant Gaps in Medical Attendances Lead to a Poor Jury Verdict

In Trieu v. Aubin, 2025 ONSC 1141, the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident on March 3, 2015, when the plaintiff was t-boned by another driver and there was significant damage to his vehicle. The plaintiff was 25 at the time of the accident. The defendant admitted to being liable for the accident.

The plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries to his neck, shoulder, and back, and returned to classes two weeks after the accident. The plaintiff next met with his family doctor on March 23, 2015, for back pain, and his family doctor recommended physiotherapy. The plaintiff did not see his family doctor again until almost two years later, on February 1, 2017, and reported lower back pain, which radiated to his thigh. However, during the two-year gap, he was involved in three other motor vehicle accidents. From 2021 to 2024, the plaintiff did not report any issues with pain. As well, following the subject accident, the plaintiff started multiple businesses which were modestly profitable.

At the trial approximately ten years later, in 2025, the plaintiff claimed that he experienced ongoing pain from the subject accident in 2015 despite significant gaps in the medical records where he did not report pain and being subsequently involved in three other car accidents.

The jury awarded the plaintiff no damages. The trial judge also found that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious and permanent impairment such that he would not be entitled to recover damages for pain and suffering or health care expenses, had the jury awarded compensation for these heads of damages.

The trial judge ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant legal costs of the action of $150,000.

8. Plaintiff With a Serious and Permanent Impairment Still Recovers Nothing for General Damages for Pain and Suffering

In Marcantonio v. Li, 2025 ONSC 3303, a plaintiff who had just graduated from high school was involved in a motor vehicle accident on October 23, 2020. The plaintiff’s pre-accident medical history included a diagnosis of depression, which arose from familial issues, and ADHD. The plaintiff claimed to have hit her head in the accident and reported having pain and other post-concussive symptoms as well as increased anxiety and depression. The plaintiff claimed that these symptoms interfered with her ability to function, work, play, socialize, and go to school.

Three experts testified on behalf of the plaintiff, a psychiatrist, a physiatrist, and a neuropsychologist. These experts opined that she sustained a mild traumatic brain injury in the accident which resulted in some cognitive symptoms, chronic neck and back pain, and as well a major depressive disorder and somatic symptom disorder. The defendant argued that much of these symptoms were caused by her pre-existing ADHD and pre-existing depression which stemmed from her relationship with her abusive father.

The trial judge ruled in the plaintiff’s favour and found that she sustained a serious and permanent impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function such that she would be entitled to recover damages for pain and suffering.

The jury nevertheless awarded her only $30,000 for general damages for pain and suffering. The threshold ruling and the jury’s damages assessment answer different legal questions. To make matters worse, this amount was reduced to $0 by the statutory deductible ($46,790.05).

9. The Dangers of Representing Yourself

In Peric v. Mississauga, 2026 ONSC 629, the self-represented plaintiff sued the City of Mississauga after her head struck the rear-view mirror of the City’s 60-foot passenger bus. The bus was stopped and in the process of permitting passengers to board.

The plaintiff claimed that the rear-view mirror of the bus dropped on her head as she was walking by, and that she suffered a mild traumatic brain injury as a result. The defendants claimed that the rear-view mirror was already lowered, and that the plaintiff was distracted and walked into the mirror.

The trial judge accepted the defendants’ version of events, and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim on the basis that she could not prove her version of events or establish that the defendants were liable.

The trial judge nevertheless considered the issue of damages. The plaintiff claimed that she suffered a mild traumatic brain injury and chronic pain which prevented her from returning to work. She attempted to file medical letters to support her claims, but these were ruled inadmissible as she failed to comply with the evidentiary requirements to have these admitted. There was little medical evidence on the record to support her claims.

She failed to produce sufficient records such as pay stubs or income tax returns to support her income loss claim and did not produce any evidence to support her claims for housekeeping and future care expenses.

As a result, the trial judge dismissed her claim on the basis that she could not establish liability. Even if she had established liability, the trial judge would have awarded her nothing for loss of income and nothing for future medical care and housekeeping expenses.

He would have awarded $75,000 for general damages for pain and suffering which would have been reduced to $28,290.50 by the statutory deductible. However, he found that she did not prove she sustained a serious and permanent impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function, such that the $28,290.50 for pain and suffering would not have been recoverable in any event.  

The trial judge ordered the self-represented plaintiff to pay $120,000 to the defendants for their legal costs.

This case illustrates why evidence of liability, medical impairment, and financial loss must be properly prepared and presented.

Conclusion

As can be seen from the above, being in a car accident does not automatically entitle you to compensation. In fact, pursuing such cases can result in financially devastating consequences, particularly where a plaintiff is also ordered to pay the defendant’s legal costs. As such, it is important to seriously and honestly consider the strengths and weaknesses of your case and determine whether proceeding with a lawsuit and to trial is worth this risk.

At Hillier & Hillier, we put the interests of our clients above all else, which includes protecting them from the negative outcomes discussed above. We provide our clients with honest and upfront legal advice about the strengths and weaknesses of their case and the risks in proceeding with a lawsuit. This enables them to make fully informed decisions about their cases.

If you have been injured in a car accident, call Hillier & Hillier at 905-453-8636 for a FREE CONSULTATION, or click here to submit an online request for a FREE CONSULTATION to discuss the strengths and weaknesses and potential risks of your claim.