What is the test for disclosing global damages in a motor vehicle accident?

The Defendant questioned the decision in Ursich v. Wilson, [2004] Y.J. No. 116, 2004 YKSC 77. In that case, Gower J., after reviewing the case law on the issue, refused to order disclosure due to the questionable probative value of the material: ¶ 15 ... there are many different factors and motivations that go into achieving a settlement. Often, settlements are simply global, with no breakdown as to the various heads of damage. And, being compromises, they are the result of a variety of ultimately unknown motivations. The rationale for any given settlement is largely subjective in nature and depends upon what the parties respectively felt was fair and reasonable. ¶ 16 Therefore, I accept the view of counsel for the plaintiff that the probative value of knowing a global amount of a settlement, or even knowing how a settlement is broken down amongst various heads of damages, is questionable. I am not persuaded that knowledge of the amount or amounts sheds any light on the subjective reasons for settling a previous matter. Thus, it would not assist in determining what the plaintiff would have recovered against the earlier defendants had the matter "been tried" the day before the second accident, as suggested in Long v. Thiessen. Rather, the onus is on the defendant to make that determination as best she can and deduct that amount from the global damages suggested for the current matter.