In Henry v. Zaitlen (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal considered a medical malpractice appeal, here from a civil jury trial.
Here the court considers the deference to be accorded a civil jury verdict regarding damages:
[67] The jury awarded Mr. Henry $194,171 for past income loss and $429,786 for future income loss.
....
[70] As stated earlier, a jury’s verdict is entitled to a high degree of deference on appeal. A verdict should not be set aside if it can be reasonably supported by the evidence. This principle applies to damages awards as well as conclusions on liability.
....
[77] It was open to the jury to find, based on the evidence with respect to Mr. Henry’s injuries, that he was able to return to work full-time at some point after his surgery but that he would retire early. That is what the jury did. Its future income loss award presupposes that Mr. Henry expected to work until the age of 68 but will now instead retire at the age of 57.
[78] These were findings that the jury could reasonably make. There is nothing inconsistent or improper about them. I would accordingly reject this ground of appeal.
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
