Rear-end collisions are Ontario’s most frequent accident type and the primary source of soft-tissue injury claims. Insurance companies devote substantial resources to minimizing payouts — not because liability is typically disputed (the rear driver is almost always at fault) but because injury severity is almost invariably contested. The fight is over the nature and extent of injuries sustained, not who caused the accident.
Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act requires drivers to maintain a safe following distance. A driver who strikes a vehicle from behind faces a strong presumption of negligence — they either followed too closely, were distracted, or failed to react appropriately. Defences including sudden braking by the lead vehicle or debris in the roadway are possible but difficult to establish.
Low-speed impact defence: Insurers frequently retain accident reconstruction engineers in low-speed rear-end cases to argue the collision did not generate sufficient energy to cause the claimant’s injuries. Courts have increasingly recognized that soft-tissue injury can occur even in minor impacts and that vehicle damage is not a reliable proxy for occupant injury.
Whiplash-associated disorders are the quintessential MIG injury, and insurers apply the $3,500 cap reflexively to all rear-end soft-tissue claimants. Challenging MIG classification requires: documentation of pre-existing conditions that prevent MIG recovery; psychological assessments confirming a post-traumatic diagnosis; and medical evidence from a physiatrist establishing injury severity inconsistent with the MIG category. Developing this evidence promptly is crucial.