The only decision of any importance so far by the Courts to interpret the Minor Injury Regulation is Sparrowhawk v. Zapolitinsky. The key part of that decision dealt with how to interpret a section of the Minor Injury Regulation that determines how some injuries are not capped :
An “activity of daily living” is interpreted broadly, but in the context of the particular injured person. Section 1(j)(i)(A) of the MIR directs evaluation of the effect of the injury on “normal activities of the claimant’s daily living” [emphasis added]. Not all injured persons may have the same normal activities of daily living. An “activity of daily living” is not restricted to physical actions but also an injured person’s ability to interact with others: “… to socialize with others, have intimate relations, enjoy their children …”, or to “… engage in recreational pursuits.”
I conclude that “substantial inability” exists where an injury:
prevents an injured person from engaging in a “normal activity of daily living”,
impedes an injured person’s engaging in a “normal activity of daily living” to a degree that is non-trivial for that person,
does not impede an injured person from engaging in a “normal activity of daily living” but that activity is associated with pain or other discomforting effects such that engaging in the activity diminishes the injured person’s enjoyment of life.
… The MIR definition of serious impairment requires that the impairment “… has been ongoing since the accident” (MIR, s. 1(j)(ii))… I conclude that the “ongoing” criterion in the definition of serious impairment does not mean “continual” or “uniform”, but rather that the impairment persists over time. The degree of dysfunction may be variable.
… the objective of the legislation is only achieved where an impairment is “ongoing”, even when that impairment involves intermittent but persistent dysfunction.
… The final requirement for “serious impairment” is that the injury “is expected not to improve substantially”. I conclude that “substantial improvement” does not mean “any improvement” but, rather, that the dysfunction cannot be expected to improve to such a degree that the “substantial inability” (MIR, s. 1(j)(i)) will cease.
… Substantial improvement is evaluated on a subjective basis specific to the injured individual.
… The critical question then becomes whether the future state of the impairment is a ‘substantial improvement’.
These statements by a Queen’s Bench Judge were recently referred to approvingly by the Court of Appeal in a case in which I was counsel for the Plaintiff. These decisions of the courts emphasize the importance of documenting how the injuries impact you on a day to day basis. It is very important to relate how your injuries impact your day to day functioning to your treatment providers.