The Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed the trial court’s decision to refuse punitive damages for caregiver services based on unsubstantiated timesheets and invoices.
Case Background
Mr. and Mrs. Griva were involved in a serious truck accident in Indiana in January 2011. Both initiated personal injury claims and settled their lawsuits.
Mr. Griva, who was resting in the truck’s bunk during the accident, received approximately $1.85 million for catastrophic injuries. Mrs. Griva, the driver, was awarded about $90,000 for minor injuries.
Caregiver Agreement and Claims
They entered into a contract to pay Ms. Kovacevic a fixed monthly rate of $2,000 for attendant care. Additionally, an alleged oral agreement stated that Ms. Kovacevic would be compensated from their settlement proceeds for the invoices she submitted for her caregiving services.
Ms. Kovacevic submitted extensive timesheets and invoices, detailing tasks including driving to appointments, grocery shopping, meal preparation, personal hygiene assistance, managing finances, Serbian translation, and communication with legal counsel related to the injury claims.
She sought general damages totalling over $642,000, claiming an outstanding balance of over $576,000 after admitting receipt of $66,500. She also requested $50,000 in punitive damages, alleging reprehensible conduct by the Grivas, accusing them of absconding to Serbia to avoid payment despite their substantial settlements.
Trial Decision (2024 ONSC 2979)
Justice Janet E. Mills dismissed all claims. The court accepted that Ms. Kovacevic provided care from April 2013 to July 2016 but concluded she had been overcompensated. The judge found her timesheets and invoices to be unreliable and likely fabricated, failing to reflect contemporaneous records of services.
Regarding punitive damages, the court held that the Grivas’ refusal to pay disputed invoices was not malicious or reprehensible conduct warranting additional damages.
Appeal and Court of Appeal Ruling (2025 ONCA 814)
Ms. Kovacevic appealed on the grounds that the judge improperly applied procedural rules allowing her to prove her case in the absence of the defendants and that evidence from insurance claims supported her invoices.
The Ontario Court of Appeal rejected the appeal. It affirmed that the trial judge properly allowed Ms. Kovacevic to present her case but was under no obligation to rule in her favour without sufficient evidence. The exclusion of inadmissible evidence and the judge’s credibility findings were upheld.
Key Takeaway for Insurers and Litigants
This ruling underscores the importance of credible, contemporaneous evidence when seeking compensation for caregiver services linked to personal injury settlements. It protects defendants against inflated and unsubstantiated claims post-settlement.
For trusted legal guidance in insurance defence and personal injury litigation, contact Flaherty McCarthy LLP. Our experienced team protects clients’ interests with diligent case review and effective advocacy.
