Skip to main content

Case Note

Can a Car Accident Claim Be Dismissed for Not Showing Up in Ontario?

An Ontario court dismissed a motor vehicle accident claim after the plaintiff repeatedly failed to attend trial and engaged in vexatious conduct. Learn what this means for injured drivers.

· 6 min read · Reviewed by Sunish Rai Uppal · 2026 ONSC 3222 (CanLII) ↗

Can your car accident lawsuit be thrown out if you don’t show up to trial?

Yes — an Ontario court can dismiss your motor vehicle accident claim entirely if you repeatedly fail to attend proceedings and show no intention of moving the case forward. In Yong Wang v. Christopher Banton, 2026 ONSC 3222 (CanLII), the Superior Court of Justice dismissed the plaintiff’s action on multiple independent grounds, including persistent non-attendance, failure to meet the statutory injury threshold, and a pattern of conduct the court described as vexatious. The decision is a clear reminder that procedural obligations matter just as much as the merits of your claim.

What does “failure to attend” mean in an Ontario civil trial?

Failure to attend means the plaintiff simply does not appear when the case is scheduled to be heard. In this case, the court found a long history of the plaintiff missing court dates, failing to pursue interlocutory steps properly, and never requesting an adjournment as an alternative. Ontario courts take finality seriously — when a case has dragged on for years and a party shows no genuine effort to advance it, dismissal becomes a real outcome. The court emphasized that prolonged delay without explanation or remedy cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.

What is the injury threshold under Ontario’s Insurance Act, and why does it matter?

The threshold is a legal requirement that must be met before an injured person can sue for general damages — including pain and suffering — after a car accident in Ontario. Under section 267.5 of the Insurance Act and Ontario Regulation 318/03, section 4.3, the plaintiff must establish a “permanent serious impairment” of an important physical, mental, or psychological function. In this case, the court found there was no physician opinion evidence supporting that the plaintiff’s injuries met this standard. Without that medical evidence, the claim for general damages could not proceed regardless of anything else. The court also noted an absence of evidence supporting lost earning capacity or out-of-pocket expenses, citing Khan v. Sinclair and Johnston v. Walker as guiding authorities.

If you have been injured in a collision and are unsure whether your injuries meet the threshold, speaking with our Ontario motor vehicle accident lawyers early in the process can help you understand what medical evidence you will need to support your claim.

What is vexatious conduct in litigation, and what are the consequences?

Vexatious conduct refers to behaviour that abuses the court process — pursuing litigation with little regard for its merits, burdening the other side with unnecessary steps, or harassing participants in the proceeding. In this case, the court identified a pattern that included bombarding defence counsel and court staff with mass emails from multiple addresses, showing disrespect for court processes, and accumulating outstanding costs orders. The court found this conduct went well beyond ordinary litigation missteps. As a consequence, the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs on a substantial indemnity basis — a higher scale than normal — reflecting the seriousness of the conduct.

What are substantial indemnity costs, and when does a court award them?

Substantial indemnity costs are a punitive cost award that goes beyond the ordinary “partial indemnity” scale typically used in Ontario civil litigation. They are awarded when a party has engaged in conduct that the court finds deserving of sanction — such as vexatious behaviour, bad faith, or deliberate misuse of court procedures. In this case, the court pointed to the numerous interlocutory steps taken with little attention to the actual merits of the claim, combined with the email harassment of counsel and court staff. Outstanding prior costs orders were also noted. The quantum of costs for the action was fixed by the court at the substantial indemnity level.

Can a court restrict how a party communicates with the court and opposing counsel?

Yes — Ontario courts have the authority to impose communication restrictions as part of their case management powers. Here, the court directed that the plaintiff’s communications with defence counsel, court staff, and judges be limited to hard copy only, prohibiting further emails. This restriction was made to apply to any review or appeal steps arising from the proceeding. The direction was a direct response to the repeated mass emails sent from multiple addresses that disrupted the proceedings. This type of order is unusual but available when a court finds that a party’s communication conduct is itself causing harm to the administration of justice.

If you are involved in litigation in the Hamilton or Burlington area and have questions about court procedures, our Burlington motor vehicle accident lawyers can walk you through what is expected of plaintiffs throughout the process.

Practical takeaways for injured drivers pursuing a car accident claim

  • Attend every court date. Missing scheduled hearings — especially without requesting an adjournment — can result in your claim being dismissed entirely, regardless of whether you were genuinely injured.
  • Get the right medical evidence early. Ontario’s injury threshold requires physician opinion evidence of a permanent serious impairment. Without it, your claim for pain and suffering damages will not survive scrutiny.
  • Document your financial losses. Lost income and out-of-pocket expenses must be supported by evidence. Vague assertions are not enough.
  • Communicate professionally. Sending mass or repeated emails to court staff, judges, or opposing counsel can result in cost sanctions and communication restrictions that make your case harder to pursue.
  • Address outstanding costs orders. Allowing prior cost awards to go unpaid while continuing to litigate is a factor courts consider when assessing conduct and awarding further costs.

UL Lawyers offers a free initial consultation from our Burlington office and works with clients across Ontario on motor vehicle accident claims. If you have questions about whether your claim meets the legal threshold or how to protect your case procedurally, reach out to our car accident legal team to discuss your situation.


This article is automated commentary on a public court decision and is for general information only — not legal advice. Decisions rely on facts unique to each case. If you are affected by a similar issue, contact a lawyer for advice specific to your situation.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Ready when you are

Get a clear next step.
No obligation.

A short call with our team gives you an honest read on your file — deadlines, documents, and what you can do next.