I was chatting with my 8 year old son not long ago about house prices.
He was curious as to why a small home in geographically desirable part of Toronto would sell for more than a much larger home in less desirable town with less amenities and less access to services.
We spoke about the golden rule of real estate: Location, Location, Location.
People will pay more money for a home with easy access to transit, postal services, entertainment, schools, potable water etc. Living off the grid might be desirable for some, but not most people, and is far more difficult than living on the grid.
There is a golden rule for personal injury law as well: Credibility, Credibility, Credibility.
If a Court doesn’t accept what a Plaintiff has to say about their case; then chances are that the Plaintiff won’t win.
The same can be said for a Defendant. If a Court doesn’t accept the Defendant’s evidence, then there is a very good chance that the Defendant will not be successful.
But, here is the hurdle for the Plaintiff.
The Defendant, in the vast majority of personal injury cases, will only be able to provide evidence as it relates to liability (how the accident happened). The Defendant will not be able to speak to the other major 2 elements of a personal injury case. The Defendant cannot provide evidence with respect to causation. Nor can a Defendant provide evidence as it relates to injuries or damages. Any by not being able to comment on these areas, the Defendant can win the case. It’s an example of less is more. The Defendant won’t be able to dig themselves into a hole by saying something which they shouldn’t say; or by rubbing a judge or jury the wrong way. The Defendant will stick to the information which they know as it relates to liability; and then; in the majority of cases won’t have anything left to say.
This is the opposite of a Plaintiff who will need to be able to comment and to speak truthfully and earnestly as it relates to:
- Liability
- Causation
- Injuries
- Damages
This presents 4x more opportunities for a Plaintiff to say something hurtful in their own case, or to make a bad impression on a judge or jury.
This is exactly what happened in the recent case of MacNeill v. McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited, 2025 ONSC 3780 (CanLII)
In this case, the Plaintiff MacNeil purchased a cup of coffee from a local McDonald’s. But, instead of coffee in the cup, there was a delimer solution in the cup which the Plaintiff ingested, and claimed damages.
At trial, the Defendant did not contest that the Plaintiff was served delimer solution and not coffee, and that the Plaintiff had ingested the delimer solution. What was contested were the extent of the Plaintiff’s injuries, their damages, and whether or not those alleged injuries were as a direct cause of ingesting the delimer solution. The Plaintiff sought damages in the following ranges:
- a) General damages for pain and suffering – $100,000 to $125,000
- b) Past Loss of Income – $297,742 to $344,555
- c) Future Loss of Income – $1,043,037 to $1,101,484
- d) Loss of Competitive Advantage (in the alternative) – $80,000 to $150,000
- e) Future Care Costs – $222,432
Unfortunately for the Plaintiff, she was only awarded $5,000 in general damages, and no other awards. Why such a small award if it was not contested that the Defendant had wronged the Plaintiff? Remember: personal injury cases aren’t all about liability. In many cases, the Defendant won’t contest that they wronged the Plaintiff. But, they will vigorously fight when it comes to causation, injuries and damages and put the Plaintiff to the strictest proof thereof.
Here is what the Honourable Justice McCarthy had to say about the Plaintiff’s evidence:
“I reject a great deal of the Plaintiff’s evidence. I did not find her to be credible. She was clearly exaggerating her symptoms related to the incident while noticeably downplaying the role played by her pre-existing condition, the long-term impact of the MVA, her psychological make-up, longtime smoking, and cocaine abuse. I find it troubling that she would testify that she had essentially recovered from her psychological and emotional difficulties by 2013…. the contemporaneous and abject lack of motivation demonstrated by the Plaintiff to improve her condition serves as evidence that her reported symptoms were either not genuine or not as serious as reported. ”
I cannot think of a more damning commentary about a Plaintiff’s credibility. This explains why the Plaintiff was only awarded $5,000 when liability was not an issue.
Here is what His Honour had to say about the one of the Plaintiff’s lay witnesses:
“I can give little weight to this evidence. The witness was clearly exaggerating, painting the Plaintiff’s world more bleakly than the Plaintiff did herself….The evidence of Ms. Lopes struck me as rehearsed, contrived, unrealistic, and not worthy of belief. I give it no weight.”
Here is the thing to keep in mind with all personal injury cases.
The Plaintiff has to prove his/her case. This means that a Defendant can admit liability, and not even say a word at trial, or even be present at trial for that matter. A Plaintiff has to do all of the heavy lifting.
At trial, a plus must establish their case on a balance of probabilities when it comes to liability, injuries, causation and damages.
If a Judge doesn’t accept what a Plaintiff has to say, then their case will not be successful. If a Judge doesn’t believe the Plaintiff’s story, that Plaintiff won’t win their case. This is why the golden rule of personal injury law for Plaintiffs is all about credibility, credibility, credibility. If a Plaintiff has no credibility, then their case is bound to fail.
In the MacNeil vs. McDonald’s Canada case discussed above, had the Honourable Justice McCarthy found the Plaintiff to be credible; and had accepted their version of the truth; then it’s very likely that the Plaintiff would have been awarded a far greater award than the $5,000 which was awarded to her at trial. A $5,000 award in a case which was not started in Small Claims Court would be a disappointment to a Plaintiff seeking damages under multiple headings in the six figure range.