Case Review | Raskin v. Stepanyan, 2022 ONSC 6247

On November 3, 2022, the trial of an undefended case was held in one day during which the plaintiff sought compensation for injuries she sustained after tripping and falling while visiting a house located in North York when attending an appointment with defendant Anna Shifrin's dental practice.

In court, the plaintiff gave her evidence, and a specialist engineering report was presented which detailed that the steps at the entrance where she fell were not conforming to Ontario Building Code regulations.

When she was taken to the hospital, a fracture of her fifth metatarsal in her right foot was discovered and treated with a cast. Following removal of the cast however, the plaintiff endured lingering pain and swelling as per an evaluation from her family physician that documented these details. Even after sessions of physiotherapy and rehabilitation, the plaintiff was still in pain. She was eventually diagnosed with chronic pain syndrome in her right foot despite all attempts to alleviate it.

The court recognized Dr. Michael West, an orthopaedic surgeon, as a specialist after he created another medical report and submitted it along with a Form 53. According to his findings, the plaintiff has been facing relentless symptoms for almost five years—ever since the accident transpired—despite having received proper treatment. He corroborated that the family physician's diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome was accurate, and noted that likely will need continuous care or medication in order to remain stable.

At her trial, the plaintiff disclosed that she and her 80-year-old husband reside in a two room apartment. Unbearable pain stemming from her injuries prevent any housework and hinder social activities like dancing. Furthermore, slippers are worn daily instead of shoes for extra comfort throughout the day due to limited mobility. In fact, such discomfort at work as a deli/bakery clerk forced this retired woman into early retirement before planned. The overall decrease in quality of life is thus heartbreakingly evident; however justice will hopefully prevail upon hearing all evidence presented forthrightly during court proceedings.

The plaintiff presented proof of her financial loss, need for housekeeping and attendant help with care requirements, as well as payments for medications, medical treatments and transportation to appointments. To back up the request of $35k in general damages sought by the claimant, case law was also offered.

Justice Morgan noted that court rulings on damages are determined through close examination of individual cases. Justice Morgan paid particular attention to the range of general damages awards from $20,000 -$50,000 that was presented as evidence by counsel; he determined McMillan v. Lefleur [1992] BCJ No. 401 was the most appropriate comparison for his judgment on this matter.

The plaintiff was granted $35,000 in general damages as well as special damages of $30,940, which comprised out-of-pocket medical expenses totalling at $3,106; housekeeping services (past and future) amounting to a total of $25,000; and OHIP’s subrogated claim standing at an estimated figure of $2,834.02. Additionally, wages for the time lost came up to be about $2,040 making the grand award sum come up to a whopping figure of  $67 980. Furthermore, costs inclusive​ ​of all fees disbursements and HST that amounted to approximately 20 000 were also awarded, keeping into consideration that the plaintiffs' costings were quite modest given what had happened thus far supported by support from Bill Of Costs filed previously using this court case proceedings.