Meeting the Burden of Proof in Personal Injury Claims

Meeting the Burden of Proof in Personal Injury Claims

Blog Article

A personal injury lawsuit holds water only when the plaintiff can prove that the negligence of the defendant caused the injury. The onus will be on the plaintiff to confirm that the defendant’s actions or his failure to act caused harm to others. Under Canadian law, this is known as the duty of care. The recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling in Zapata, Steve, et al. v. Reid, David, et al., 2025 ONSC 594 (CanLII) highlights the complexities involved in proving negligence in personal injury Lawyers Mississauga cases.

The background of the case:

The accident happened on July 17, 2017, on Highway 427, also known as King’s Highway 427, in Ontario. The defendant, David Reid, a construction worker, was driving home from work in his pickup truck. A sudden seizure caused him to lose control of his truck, and it rammed into multiple vehicles before hitting the vehicle carrying the plaintiffs, Steve Zapata and Veronica Gonzalez Duque. Subsequent inquiries after the accident revealed to the plaintiffs that Mr. Reid had suffered from seizures on two other occasions prior to this accident, and he was eventually diagnosed with a brain tumour.

Subsequent to the diagnosis, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) suspended his copyright in March 2016. However, the MTO soon reinstated his copyright in May 2016 once his doctor declared him fit to drive and allowed him to rejoin his work at the construction site. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant should not have been driving at all and, therefore, he was liable for damages caused by the “inevitable accident.” It is worth noting here that Mr. Reid succumbed to brain cancer five months after the accident, and he was represented by his estate at the trial.

The defendant’s medical history

The core of the case is, of course, the medical history of Mr. Reid prior to the accident. Mr. Reid suffered from two seizures in July 2015 and November 2015, respectively. Medical investigation revealed the presence of a brain tumour. This diagnosis prompted MTO to suspend his license in March 2016. From the time of the diagnosis, Mr. Reid had been strictly following the treatment regimen prescribed by his doctor. He had been taking the anti-seizure medication Keppra, which significantly reduced the chances of the seizure recurring.

Following this, it was determined that since Mr. Reid was adhering to the prescribed treatment and had no further recurrence of seizures during this period, he was fit to report back to work and to drive his pickup truck. In fact, his family doctor, Dr. Wilansky, reached out to Dr. Temple, a neurologist, for advice on the matter, who responded that since he had been “seizure-free for the amount of time required in order to drive by the MTO. His seizure risk is low.” The MTO, therefore, reinstated his copyright in May 2016.

The standard of care:

The plaintiffs argued that the defendant breached his duty of care by ignoring the risk of another seizure. Under Canadian law, the standard of care requirement would look at what would be the reasonable and prudent thing to do under such circumstances and whether the defendant failed to meet his duty of care to prevent harm to others. Here, the court noted that the defendant was not a medically trained professional, and he was relying upon the advice from his family doctor. He followed the treatment prescribed by his doctor and continued to take the anti-seizure medication Keppra.

Once his doctor cleared him, he resumed his work at the construction site, and his copyright was reinstated by the MTO. Considering all this, the court ruled that the defendant’s actions met the standard of care. The medical experts from both sides agreed in their testimonies that it was the failure of the doctors to advise him about the potential consequences of his progressed brain tumour and that the risk of another seizure had increased during this time.

Was it an inevitable accident?

Another key point raised by the plaintiffs’ personal injury lawyer was that it was an inevitable accident that could have been prevented had the defendant chosen not to drive. The court observed that Mr. Reid continued to take his medication as prescribed, never missed his medical appointments, remained fit and active enough to operate heavy construction equipment at work, and was cleared for driving by his doctor. In fact, his treatment team decided to increase the dosage of his anti-seizure medication only after the accident. The court noted that considering all this, Mr. Reid’s driving met the standard of every other driver on Highway 427 on that day.

The burden of proof:

In its judgment, the court observed that the plaintiffs were trying to shift the burden of proof onto the defendant by putting forward the “inevitable accident” argument. In contrast, the burden of proving the negligence remained with the plaintiffs throughout, and they failed to meet this requirement. On the other hand, the personal injury lawyers representing Mr. Reid’s estate were able to prove that, as a layman, he continued to follow his medical team’s advice and would have stopped driving had he been advised to do so. In fact, if the MTO had suspended his license again, he would have complied with the suspension just as he did before.



Why did the court dismiss the personal injury claim?

In the end, the court ruled in favour of the defendant, pointing out that Mr. Reid did everything possible and that his actions met the standard of care under the law. The plaintiffs failed to prove that

• The defendant breached his duty of care.


• The accident was inevitable and, therefore, preventable.

 The estate representing the defendant was able to prove that:

The defendant was cleared to resume his work and to drive.

Once cleared, he was working full-time, handling heavy construction equipment daily without any errors or mishaps.

He was independently handling all his affairs and activities throughout this period.

There were no signs of seizures throughout the 18 months prior to the accident.

His doctors were aware of his driving the pickup truck, and there was not advise them to stop this.

The neurologist Dr. Marmor’s assessment that his seizure risk was low happened just 10 days before the accident.

He always cooperated and followed medical treatments from his doctors and complied with the previous license suspension order from MTO.

He was not taking any other medications that would counteract Keppra, the anti-seizure medication he was taking at that time.

The court, therefore, ruled that Mr. Reid was not liable for the damages caused by the accident on that fateful day.

How can our lawyer for personal injury help you in such cases?

This ruling clearly demonstrates the importance of meeting the burden of proof in personal injury cases. If you are planning to file a personal injury case, you need to get tailored guidance from our lawyer for personal injury to protect your rights. A knowledgeable personal injury lawyer will fight for your rights and ensure that you receive the compensation you deserve. Reach out to us at 905-405-0199 for a free consultation today.

Report this page