ICBC Law

BC Injury Law and ICBC Claims Blog

Erik MagrakenThis Blog is authored by British Columbia ICBC injury claims lawyer Erik Magraken. Erik is a partner with the British Columbia personal injury law-firm MacIsaac & Company. He restricts his practice exclusively to plaintiff-only personal injury claims with a particular emphasis on ICBC injury claims involving orthopaedic injuries and complex soft tissue injuries. Please visit often for the latest developments in matters concerning BC personal injury claims and ICBC claims

Erik Magraken does not work for and is not affiliated in any way with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC). Please note that this blog is for information only and is not claim-specific legal advice.  Erik can only provide legal advice to clients. Please click here to arrange a free consultation.

“It is Unusual For a Trial Judge to Award Costs to an Unsuccessful Plaintiff”

July 21st, 2017

Interesting reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Court of Appeal upholding a trial judges award of costs in favour of a plaintiff who had their lawsuit dismissed.

In today’s case (Tisalona v. Easton) the Plaintiff sued for damages as a result of injuries sustained in two collisions.  The Plaintiff was awarded damages for the first crash though less than what she requested and also less than the Defendant’s pre trial offer to settle.  The claim for damages from the second collision was dismissed.  Despite this the Court awarded the Plaintiff costs for both actions which were tried together.  In upholding this result the BC Court of Appeal provided the following reasons:

[75]         In the case of the 2011 action, the only issue at trial was whether the 2011 Accident had aggravated or prolonged the effects of the 2008 Accident. The trial judge concluded that it had not, but that it had been reasonable to deal with the two accidents together.

[76]         The trial judge went on to estimate that approximately one hour of trial time was devoted to evidence concerning the second accident.  None of the expert reports had addressed the 2011 Accident to any extent.

[77]         It is unusual for a trial judge to award costs to an unsuccessful plaintiff. Here the principal considerations were the de minimus nature of the additional time required to deal with the 2011 action at trial and the trial judge’s conclusion that it had been reasonable to join this claim with the more substantial action in relation to the 2008 Accident.

[78]         In my view these considerations are not arbitrary, but rather were connected to the case before the trial judge. They fall within the broad discretion afforded to trial judges following the elimination of the qualification “for good cause” from our rules. Accordingly, I would not give effect to this ground of appeal.


Court Prohibits Surveillance During Defence Medical Exam

July 16th, 2017

Useful reasons for judgement were published this week by the BC Supreme Court, Nanaimo Registry, finding it is appropriate to prohibit a Defendant from conducting video surveillance of a plaintiff who is compelled to attend a Defence medical examination in a personal injury lawsuit.

In the recent case (Moquin v. Fitt) the Mr. Justice Thompson provided the following reasons justifying this restriction:

[21]         The defendant nominates a R. 7-6 medical examiner, but it is the Court that appoints the examiner and orders the plaintiff to attend for the examination at a particular time and place. On the dates of the medical examinations, the plaintiff will not be in public on journeys of his own choosing. If the defendant or the defendant’s insurer takes advantage of the opportunity created by court order to engage in surveillance then the defendant might be seen by a reasonable observer to be acting in close concert with the Court. Partisan conduct aligned with the court order may be seen as lessening or compromising the Court’s neutrality, and the Court must, of course, zealously protect its reputation for impartiality.

[22]         Barring surveillance on the trip to or from the medical examinations is hardly a significant barrier to the defendant’s ability to gather information, and in my view the imposition of a surveillance bar and the consequent chance that the trier of fact might be deprived of some relevant information is a small price to pay to guard the Court’s reputation. Returning to R. 13-1(9), I think the non-surveillance condition promotes the just determination of this proceeding — a stated object of the Rules — because it prevents the possibility of conduct which might degrade the perception of the Court’s impartiality.


BC Court of Appeal – Cyclist 50% at Fault for Collision for Passing Vehicles on the Right

July 12th, 2017

Cyclists commonly split a single lane of traffic by riding near the curb and passing vehicles stopped at an intersection on the right.  Reasons for judgement were released today noting that doing so not only violates the Motor Vehicle Act but can be negligent as well.

In today’s case  (Ilett v. Buckley) the Court overturned a trial judges finding of 100% responsibility of the Defendant driver.  The court summarized the facts as follows:

[5]             Mr. Ilett was riding on the shoulder of Admirals northbound.  He was passing to the right of the slow-moving vehicles.  Other cyclists were riding on the shoulder in the same way.  He considered the shoulder to be a cycle lane.  The road was flat for 300 yards leading to the intersection.  He was seen approaching the intersection by the driver of the vehicle that was stopped behind Ms. Buckley’s vehicle, Messa Mattina; he was visible to her for a significant distance.  Mr. Ilett scanned the traffic as he rode and he saw the large vehicle at the intersection ahead.  He saw the gap in the northbound traffic ahead of that vehicle opening.  He did not apply his brakes to slow his bicycle.

[6]             The large vehicle precluded Ms. Buckley and Mr. Ilett from seeing each other as she began her turn and he closed on the intersection.  Accepting Ms. Mattina’s testimony, the judge found that Ms. Buckley commenced her turn slowly but, before she could see Mr. Ilett approaching, she accelerated across the northbound traffic lane.  Nearly the whole of the front half of her vehicle was across the shoulder when, after hearing a screech of brakes, Mr. Ilett crashed into it.  His momentum was such that he was carried over the hood of the vehicle and onto the pavement beyond.  The impact caused him to suffer various injuries.  He was taken to hospital.

In finding the cyclist should bear 50% responsibility for this crash the Court of Appeal noted as follows:

[23]         He was riding on the shoulder of the road at speed, passing the slow-moving northbound vehicles.  He failed to recognize, as he should have, that he was not riding in a designated cycle lane and, at least under the Act, was not permitted to pass vehicles on the right as he was.  He was approaching an intersection.  He saw the gap in the northbound traffic open ahead of a large vehicle which would permit a southbound vehicle on Admirals to turn left onto Seenupin.  He could not see whether the intersection was clear because the large vehicle was obstructing his vision.  He made no attempt to slow down to see whether the intersection was clear – whether any vehicle was turning into the gap that had opened.  He proceeded to pass the large vehicle on its right, entered the intersection, and immediately collided with Ms. Buckley’s vehicle.

[24]         It is difficult to see on what basis the judge found in effect that, by virtue of s. 174, Ms. Buckley had a duty to yield to Mr. Ilett such that he effectively had the right of way when under s. 158 of the Act he was not permitted to pass the large vehicle on the right and enter the intersection as he did.  It cannot be that one applicable section of the Actis to be taken to be a factor in establishing the standard of care but another section that would apply in the circumstances is not.  It is not for the court to pick and choose between interrelated sections that apply.  Rather it must be the whole of those sections, and the extent to which taken together they bear on the circumstances, that may be considered a factor in determining the standard of care.  To do otherwise would appear to amount to legal error. ..

[33]         As stated, the cause of the accident was primarily that neither Ms. Buckley nor Mr. Ilett saw each other before the collision.  That was because neither exercised the measure of caution necessary to discharge their duty to make a reasonable effort to ensure they could proceed as they intended safely.

[34]         It is not possible to establish different degrees of fault in the circumstances of this case such that in accordance with s. 1 of the Negligence Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 333, liability is to be apportioned equally.


$85,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment For Chronic Soft Tissue Injuries with Anxiety and Depression

July 5th, 2017

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for chronic soft tissue injuries.

In today’s case (Ponsart v. Kong) the Plaintiff was involved in 2 collisions for which the Defendants were responsible.  These resulted in chronic soft tissue injuries to her neck and back with some psychological overlay.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $85,000 Mr. Justice Butler made the following findings and provided these reasons:

[76]         With these conclusions in mind, I make the following specific findings about the nature and extent of Ms. Ponsart’s injuries and symptoms:

·       She suffered a Grade II strain of her neck and low back in the First Accident. At the time of the First Accident, she had recovered from the injuries suffered in the May 2011 accident. The pain in her thoracic spine around that time was primarily caused by breast enlargement that was alleviated by the surgery in 2013.

·       The First Accident also caused the plaintiff to experience significant anxiety and depression, which affected her ability to take part in work and leisure activities. Nevertheless, as her physical condition improved, she was able to take part in many activities. By 2013, she was doing strenuous training. While she functioned marginally at times, that was primarily a result of her psychological condition.

·       Her anxious nature predisposed her to experiencing anxiety and depression. However, there is no evidence suggesting that she would have experienced the emotional problems she faced without the First Accident.

·       The plaintiff was functioning reasonably well before the Second Accident, although she was still experiencing some neck and low back pain. Her emotional condition had improved from the summer of 2014.

·       The Second Accident aggravated the plaintiff’s soft tissue strain to the cervical and lumbar spine. The injury was not as serious as what she experienced in the First Accident, although she was partially disabled for two to three months. The Second Accident had a significant impact on her emotional well-being. It caused additional anxiety and depression, although not to the extent of a major depressive disorder.

·       By the time of the Third Accident, the plaintiff’s physical condition was manageable, although she was still experiencing minor neck and low back pain, which by that time had become chronic.

·       The Third Accident caused a further aggravation of the injuries from the two prior accidents. It had a significant impact on her, both physically and emotionally because of her increased headaches. She now suffers from chronic headaches including severe migraines. The exacerbation of her neck and back symptoms lasted for approximately six months before returning to the pre-accident status.

·       As a result of the accidents, the plaintiff is left with a minor degree of chronic neck and low back pain. She is able to manage all tasks of daily living and most of her recreational pursuits most of the time. However, because of the accidents, she is more susceptible to anxiety and depression than she was before the First Accident.

·       As will be evident from these conclusions, much of the plaintiff’s suffering was emotional. As I have described, there is no doubt it was caused by the First and Second Accidents.

[84]         As I have described, a major component of the plaintiff’s injury is emotional or mental. As the Supreme Court of Canada recently affirmed in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, such losses are compensable where, quoting Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27, they are “’serious and prolonged and rise above the ordinary annoyances, anxieties and fears’ that come with living in civil society”. The plaintiff has clearly met the burden of proving serious and prolonged disturbance to her emotional well-being arising from the injuries in the First and Second Accidents.

[85]         When I consider the facts I have found about the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries, I conclude that a fair award for non-pecuniary loss is $85,000. This award does not include any amount for two discrete injuries or symptoms: the exacerbation of the plaintiff’s neck and shoulder pain that occurred in the six-month period after the Third Accident; and the headache symptoms that the plaintiff suffered after that accident.


BC Supreme Court – Double Costs Does Not Mean Double Disbursements

June 28th, 2017

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vernon Registry, confirming that an order for double costs does not also mean a party is entitled to double disbursements.

In today’s case (Lafond v. Mandair) the Plaintiff was injured in a collision and sued for damages.  Prior to trial the Plaintiff made a formal settlement offer of $300,000.  At trial the Plaintiff beat this quantum being awarded just over $343,000.

The Plaintiff sought double costs and disbursements.  The Defendant agreed double costs were in order but argued that double disbursements were not recoverable.  The Court agreed and in doing so provided the following succinct reasons:

[14]         Double costs may be awarded for some or all steps taken after delivery of the offer to settle. A step in the proceeding is a formal step that moves the action forward: Canadian National Railway Company v. Chiu, 2014 BCSC 75 at para. 7.

[15]         Incurring a disbursement is not a formal step as contemplated by the Civil Rules.

[16]          I, therefore, conclude that under Rule 9-1(5)(b), double disbursements are not to be awarded as part of double costs. Thus, a successful offer to settle can be rewarded with an entitlement to double costs for tariff items, together with actual and reasonable disbursements.


“It Is Not Necessary To Call Expert Evidence On Each Issue”

June 26th, 2017

In recent years expert evidence has become more common in injury litigation and it is not unusual to see litigants sometimes err on the side of overkill.  To this end helpful comments were recently released by the BC Supreme Court, Kelowna Registry, highlighting this practice and reminding litigants expert evidence can be used judiciously.

In the recent case (Truax v. Hyrb) the parties were involved in a collision and fault was at issue.  The Defendant brought an application seeking a dismissal of the lawsuit and argued that the Plaintiff failing to adduce expert engineering evidence should lead to an adverse inference.  In rejecting this suggestion Mr. Justice Dley provided the following comments about the over-use of expert evidence:

[20]         The defence argues that the failure by the plaintiff to introduce engineering evidence of the collision is “telling” and that an inference should be drawn against Mr. Truax. I agree that the absence of engineering evidence is telling – there is no need to call such expert evidence when common sense prevails.

[21]         Litigation has become a costly venture; oftentimes unnecessarily so. Litigants are far too quick to secure expert testimony when it is not required. Perhaps that is out of an abundance of caution and concern that the absence of expert evidence will be a failing of counsel.

[22]         Each case should be considered on its unique circumstances. It is trite to say that it is not necessary to call expert evidence on each issue. Expert testimony should be restricted to those matters where it would actually assist the court because the evidence is so specialized, scientific or complex. Expert evidence should not be viewed as a default or automatic step in litigation strategy.

 


$75,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Aggravation of Chronic, Disabling Pre-Existing Condition

June 14th, 2017

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a collision which aggravated long-standing pre-existing health complications.

In today’s case (Cheema v. Khan) the Plaintiff was disabled since 2003 due to arthritis and depression.  She was involved in a 2012 collision that the Defendants admitted fault for.  The collision aggravated her pre-existing issues.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $75,000 Chief Justice Hinkson provided the following reasons:

[103]     There is no question that Ms. Cheema was unemployable after 2003. She had been on long-term disability from employment as a linen worker since 2004 due to rheumatoid arthritis and major depressive disorder. She was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis in the 1990s. The pain was in her neck initially, followed by bilateral hand pain since 2000. Her rheumatoid arthritis affected her hands, wrists, feet, ankles and shoulders. In the month preceding the Collision, the plaintiff had a flare up of her rheumatoid arthritis. Since 2000, the plaintiff had also suffered from longstanding, severe and chronic major depressive disorder, chronic anxiety and panic attacks leading up to the Collision.

[104]     I am unable to accept the plaintiff’s submission that her condition prior to the Collision was stable. She suffered from severe rheumatoid arthritis, Morton’s neuromas and a severe major depressive disorder prior to the Collision, and these conditions compromised her ability to ambulate, cook, clean and perform other household activities. I am satisfied that the plaintiff’s severe rheumatoid arthritis and severe depression waxed and waned prior to the Collision, but overall were worsening, and would have continued to worsen even if she had not been involved in the Collision.

[105]     I find, however, that the Collision caused an aggravation of her pre-Collision neck, back and shoulder pain and headaches, and likely had a negative effect on the symptoms arising from her rheumatoid arthritis.

[106]     I conclude that the plaintiff’s neck, back and shoulder pain and headaches were worsened by the Collision and that without the accident she would not have suffered from those difficulties as much as she has for the four years that have followed the Collision.

[107]     I accept the evidence of Dr. Shuckett that stress has a negative effect on someone suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, and has had such an effect on the plaintiff and accelerated the progress of her disease.

[108]     I am also persuaded that the Collision had a negative effect on the plaintiff’s psychiatric state that has resulted in a downward spiralling effect causing the plaintiff to brood about her physical condition and limit her activities, in turn worsening her depression, in turn compromising her participation in certain activities and so on…

[133]     I assess the plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages at $75,000.


BC Court of Appeal – The Phrase Crumbling Skull is “Rarely Helpful”

June 8th, 2017

Reasons were released today by the BC Court of Appeal criticizing  the phrase ‘crumbling skull’ and spelling out the analysis a Court must take when dealing with non tort related causes to a Plaintiff’s position.

In the recent case (Gordon v. Ahn) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2009 collision and was awarded $50,000 at trial.  In reaching the award the trial judge noted that the plaintiff was a ‘crumbling skull’ and further that she failed to mitigate her damages and reduced the damage assessment by some unspecified amount.  The BC Court of Appeal ordered a new trial noting the trial judge did not properly address the evidence to justify any reductions.  In discussing what is needed of a Court when deciding what position a plaintiff would be in but for the tort the following reasons were provided:

[33]        The use of the phrase “crumbling skull” to describe a plaintiff’s condition is, in any event, rarely helpful. As Major J. explained in Athey, there are no special rules or analyses that apply to claims made by plaintiffs who, before becoming victims of a tort, are affected by conditions that may deteriorate in the future. Damages are always to be assessed by reference to the situation that the plaintiff would be in but for the wrongdoing. Describing a plaintiff as coming within the “crumbling skull doctrine” does not eliminate the need for a complete analysis of the pain and suffering caused by the accident.

[34]        The judge found that there was “an inter-relationship between the pain that the plaintiff experienced from her physical injuries and her emotional or psychological problems”. He also found that her psychological problems “worsened because of the accident”. Even in cases where a plaintiff is suffering from serious chronic depression, an aggravation of the symptoms attributable to a tort is compensable: Sangha v. Chen, 2013 BCCA 267. In the present case, where the plaintiff’s symptoms were fairly minor before the accident, but developed into major depression as a result of the accident, it is clear that damages ought to have been awarded.

[35]        It is not apparent, from the judge’s reasons, whether he awarded any damages in respect of the depression brought on by the accident. Beyond referring to the “crumbling skull doctrine”, he did not undertake any analysis of the issue of damages in relation to Ms. Gordon’s emotional and psychological deterioration.

[36]        A proper analysis of the issue would have required the judge to consider the degree to which Ms. Gordon’s psychological and emotional health was damaged by the accident. Such an analysis would have required a detailed consideration of her pre-accident and post-accident mental health, as well as an assessment of the likelihood that a deterioration would have occurred even in the absence of an accident (see Laidlaw v. Couturier, 2010 BCCA 59). The judge failed, in this case, to undertake such an analysis.


“Partisan” Experts Criticized and Rejected by BC Supreme Court

June 6th, 2017

Adding to this site’s archives of judicial criticism of expert evidence, reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, rejecting the evidence of two experts the court found gave evidence in a ‘partisan’ fashion.

In today’s case (Thompson v. Helgeson) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2012 collision that the Defendant admitted liability for.  In the course of the lawsuit the Plaintiff was assessed by several experts including two psychiatrists, one retained by the Plaintiff and the other by the Defendant.  The Court gave “no weight to either” finding they were partisan in their evidence.  In rejecting these opinions Mr. Justice Sewell provided the following reasons:

[72]         There is a disagreement between Dr. Ancill and Dr. Levin over whether Ms. Thompson suffers from any recognized psychiatric illness related to the Accident.

[73]         Dr. Ancill and Dr. Levin agree that Ms. Thompson does not suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. However, they disagree on whether she suffers from any recognized psychiatric disorders.

[74]         Dr. Ancill diagnosed Ms. Thompson with the following conditions:

1.  Post-Concussion Syndrome with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury;

2.  Mild Neurocognitive Disorder arising from a Traumatic Brian Injury;

3.  Adjustment Disorder with anxiety-chronic type;

4.  Major Depressive Disorder-moderate-severe, chronic; and

5.  Somatic Symptom Disorder.

[75]         Dr. Levin’s opinion is that Ms. Thompson does not meet the criteria for any recognized psychiatric disorder.

[76]         I have reservations about the evidence of both Dr. Ancill and Dr. Levin. I found both of them to be somewhat partisan in their opinions.

[77]         I do not accept that Ms. Thompson is suffering from five psychiatric disorders as opined by Dr. Ancill. I have already concluded that she does not have post-concussion syndrome or a brain injury. Having reviewed Dr. Ancill’s report, I am unable to conclude that he took a balanced and unpartisan approach to assessing Ms. Thompson’s mental state.

[78]         On the other hand, Dr. Levin rejected the notion that Ms. Thompson suffered from any psychiatric conditions arising from the Accident and attributed any complaints she had to her pre-existing depression.

[79]         As with Dr. Ancill, I considered the tone and content of Dr. Levin’s report to be very adversarial. In his report, he repeatedly referred to what he described as inconsistencies in Ms. Thompson’s statements to him during her interview. However, on cross-examination, he was forced to agree that these inconsistencies were clarified by Ms. Thompson later in her interview. In addition, he provided no explanation as to why Ms. Thompson has developed the headaches that are her chief complaint and in fact, paid scant attention to their existence.

[80]         I also found Dr. Levin to be argumentative and at times non-responsive in the answers he gave on cross-examination. One example of this was his answers with respect to whether Ms. Thompson met the criteria for Somatic Symptom Disorder with Pain. In his report he said the following:

48.       I defer an opinion about Ms. Thompson’s physical injuries sustained in the subject MVA to specialists in internal medicine and orthopaedic surgery. However, from a psychiatric perspective, Ms. Thompson did not present with a catastrophic perception of her injuries, pervasive preoccupation with pain or excessive time consuming activities trying to manage her pain to the extent that she would be diagnosed with chronic pain disorder as a psychiatric condition currently described in DSM 5 under the rubric of somatic symptom and related disorders.

[81]         When counsel pointed out that the DSM 5 criteria for Somatic Symptom Disorder stated that a catastrophic perception of injuries was only possibly present, Dr. Levin gave unresponsive answers and failed to acknowledge the obvious meaning of the passage in the DSM 5 that he was being asked about.

[82]         Finally, Dr. Levin was the only witness of the many expert and lay witnesses who opined that “Ms. Thompson appeared as an optimistic, future-oriented, and at times cheerful woman who reported her unimpaired ability to enjoy herself and make other people laugh.” Based on Ms. Thompson’s evidence at trial, my own observations of her and the evidence of every other witness who commented on her post-Accident condition, I simply cannot accept that she presented herself to Dr. Levin in that manner.

[83]         I therefore conclude that Dr. Levin lacked the required impartiality and objectivity to provide reliable evidence about Ms. Thompson’s post-Accident condition.

[84]         With regard to the reports of both Dr. Ancill and Dr. Levin, I also do not find it particularly helpful to know whether Ms. Thompson meets the criteria for specific psychiatric disorders set out in the DSM 5. In assessing damages, the question is whether Ms. Thompson’s symptoms are genuine, whether there is a substantial connection between those symptoms and the defendant’s negligence, and the effect that those symptoms have had on the plaintiff.

[85]         After reviewing both opinions, I give no weight to either. It seemed to me that Dr. Ancill was going out of his way to identify every possible mental illness suggested by Ms. Thompson’s reported symptoms, while Dr. Levin seemed anxious to convey the impression that Ms. Thompson was in no distress whatsoever.


$65,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Partly Disabling Mechanical Neck and Back Pain

June 6th, 2017

Reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster registry, assessing damages for partly disabling injuries sustained in a collision.

In today’s case (Riley v. Ritsco) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2011 collision.  The Defendant was found fully liable.  Following the collision the plaintiff suffered from chronic neck and back pain with associated symptoms and a poor prognosis for full recovery.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $65,000 Mr. Justice Bowden provided the following reasons:

[42]         In summary, Dr. Adrian opined as follows:

1.     The mechanical neck, mid and lower back pain experienced by the plaintiff are consistent with suffering an injury to the spinal tissue and are causally related to the motor vehicle accident.

2.     The headaches experienced by the plaintiff are triggered by neck pain and related to his neck injury.

3.     The plaintiff’s left shoulder pain symptoms are causally related to the accident.

4.     The plaintiff’s left knee pain symptoms are causally related to the accident.

5.     While the plaintiff experiences psychological and cognitive symptoms, Dr. Adrian deferred to specialists in psychiatry to comment on the nature of those symptoms.

6.     As several years have passed since the accident, the prognosis for further recovery from the injuries suffered in the accident into the future is poor.

7.     The plaintiff will probably continue to experience difficulty performing activities that place physical forces onto his neck, back, left shoulder and left knee. He will probably continue to experience difficulty performing employment, recreational and household activities involving prolonged sitting, standing or walking, awkward spinal positioning, heavy or repetitive lifting, stooping, repetitive neck motion, repetitive reaching, climbing or jarring activities.

8.     The plaintiff’s physical limitations are unlikely to improve into the future and he is permanently partially disabled due to injuries suffered in the accident.

[43]         The plaintiff has undergone a variety of treatments for his injuries following the accident including 134 physiotherapy treatments, 64 massages, acupuncture and chiropractic treatments. This has given him some relief but the pain symptoms referred to by Dr. Adrian continue.

[57]         I accept Dr. Adrian’s description of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the collision. It appears that the plaintiff has endured pain of different levels and at different times during the years following the accident. He was totally disabled from work for about 14 months and he will likely continue to experience some pain in the areas of his body where he was injured for the remainder of his life. He is described by Dr. Adrian as suffering a permanent partial disability as a result of the accident. His injuries have negatively affected his ability to work as a millwright as well as a number of his recreational activities…

[62]         While Dr. Adrian opines that the plaintiff would find certain functions at work to be difficult he did not say that the plaintiff was unemployable. There is also insufficient evidence, and none from an expert, to establish that the plaintiff suffered psychological damage from the accident. Indeed, Dr. Adrian defers to specialists such as a psychiatrist regarding the nature of the plaintiff’s psychological state.

[63]         Unlike Mr. Mandra, the plaintiff in the case at bar did not present evidence from an occupational therapist or a psychiatrist.

[64]         Considering the factors referred to in Stapley v. Hejslet and the particular circumstances of the plaintiff I have concluded that an award of $65,000 is appropriate for non-pecuniary damages.