ICBC Law

Adding to this site’s archived posts of BC non-pecuniary damage awards for shoulder injuries, reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for soft tissue injuries and an impingement syndrome.

In last week’s case (Sandhar v. Rolston) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2004 rear-end collision.  Fault was admitted by the offending driver.  The trial focused on the value of the Plaintiff’s claim.  The Plaintiff suffered a soft tissue injury to her neck and an impingement syndrome to her right shoulder.  The symptoms largely recovered by 2007 following a cortisone injection although she had some lingering symptoms.

Complicating matters, the Plaintiff injured her right shoulder shovelling snow in 2008.   She injured her rotator cuff.  Mr. Justice Affleck found this was a ‘divisible injury‘ and assessed damages accordingly.  In awarding $60,000 for non-pecuniary damages the Court provided the following reasons:

[53] In Hussack v. Chilliwack School District No. 33, 2011 BCCA 258, the court observed that decisions of the court on the question of an intervening cause, “say that if an injured party acts unreasonably and causes him or herself further injury, the tortfeasor is not responsible for any injuries suffered as a result of the second injury.” It was not reasonable for the plaintiff to have shovelled snow in the fashion that she did in 2008. Even if the injuries from that activity were indivisible, I would not award damages for them.

[54] That does not mean compensation for the injuries from the car accident is cut off from the date the plaintiff shovelled snow. If the car accident injuries continued to have their effects after December 2008, the defendant remains liable to compensate the plaintiff for those effects. See Dudek v. Li, 2000 BCCA 321.

[55] There has been no mechanical derangement of the plaintiff’s neck and shoulder caused by the car accident. I accept Dr. Leith’s view that the plaintiff’s injuries were soft tissue injuries of the “whiplash” variety. The evidence is that the whiplash was properly characterized as grade one. That is the least damaging form of a whiplash injury. That does not mean the injuries were insignificant. On the contrary, they caused pain and measure of disability from May 2004 until the cortisone injection in April 2007. I accept that slight pain returned later that year and through 2008. Despite the plaintiff’s ability to carry on with work, the plaintiff found it to be uncomfortable to do so. I accept that even if she had not suffered a new injury to her shoulder in December 2008, the pre-existing problems would have lingered even beyond 2008 for perhaps about two years.

[56] I have been provided by the parties with numerous authorities on the assessment of non-pecuniary damages in similar cases. As is usual, none of the plaintiffs in those cases had injuries the same as the plaintiff before me. I take into account the long course of difficulties experienced by the plaintiff which would not have been suffered but for the car accident and that the car accident injuries would have lingered for about six years while gradually diminishing. The three years before the plaintiff had the cortisone injection were difficult, but she did her best to carry on with her employment and with her housekeeping with considerable discomfort. She lost much of her enjoyment of life in those years. She returned to her pre-accident condition after April 2007 and had marked relief of pain for 18 months, but not complete resolution. The plaintiff’s high expectations of herself in her employment, housekeeping and recreational activities, increased the effect of the car accident injuries, but the defendant must accept the plaintiff as she is.

[57] I assess non-pecuniary damages at $60,000…

Reasons for judgement were released yesterday by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a rotator cuff injury caused by a motor vehicle collision.

In yesterday’s case (Lim v. Anderson) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2008 collision when the Defendant ran a red light.  Fault was admitted by the Defendant.  The Plaintiff suffered an impingement syndrome in her shoulder due to a rotator cuff injury caused by the crash.  She had some ongoing symptoms of pain and limitation at the time of trial.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $55,000 Madam Justice Fenlon provided the following reasons:

[7] There was a difference of opinion between Dr. Christian and the plaintiff’s treating orthopaedic surgeon, Dr. Yu, as to the cause of the plaintiff’s ongoing shoulder pain. Dr. Yu attributes it to calcific tendonitis caused by the soft tissue injuries. In his view, with the injury there was bruising and swelling or hemorrhage into the rotator cuff giving rise to pain or an abduction and impingement syndrome. In this condition the tendon is pinched between the under surface of the acromion and the humeral head, resulting in pain on movement…

[9] While it is not really necessary to choose between the opinions on causation, given the agreement on ongoing residual pain in the shoulder, I prefer Dr. Yu’s diagnosis…

[10] I accept his finding that the plaintiff’s response to an injection into the subacromial space of her right shoulder, (temporary relief from pain), confirmed his diagnosis…

[38] The biggest impact on Ms. Lim in terms of loss of enjoyment of life is her inability to cook using a wok, to do the vacuuming and heavy housework she used to do to keep her home in the meticulous order she enjoyed and to do her own gardening and yard work. Her co-workers describe a woman who is less cheerful than she used to be and is often sore and uncomfortable at work. She can no longer pour tea when they go for dim sum together, something she always did before the accident.

[39] There is medical evidence that suggests that the plaintiff’s soft tissue injuries may further improve with exercise over time, although the evidence supports a finding that her shoulders will not likely improve in future.

[40] Taking into account all of the Stapley factors, I find that an award of $55,000 for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life is appropriate.

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry assessing damages for a chronic shoulder soft tissue injury.

In last week’s case (Araki v. Guitard) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2007 collision.  She was 17 at the time.  The vehicle in which she was riding as a passenger was T-Boned by the Defendant’s vehicle.  Fault was admitted.

The Plaintiff suffered various soft tissue injuries.  Many of these went on to recover, unfortunately her shoulder was injured and continued to pose problems at the time of trial.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $50,000 Mr. Justice Williams made the following findings:

[7] Based on all of the evidence, I am satisfied that it has been proven that the plaintiff sustained physical injuries in the collision. Those included injuries to the right side of her neck, the right side of her upper and mid back, and to her right shoulder. As well, she experienced occasional headaches.

[8] The headache condition resolved within a short time, a matter of months at the most.

[9] The back and neck discomfort have substantially resolved although it is not exactly clear when. I am satisfied that state had been attained within three years of the accident. The discomfort from those particular areas was not especially significant; it would be fairly described as modest. If there are occasional discomforts in those areas now, I find they are associated to the shoulder pain.

[10] The plaintiff’s right shoulder has continued to be painful. The pain and discomfort has significantly lessened since the early stages following the accident, but remains an issue nevertheless. The pain is not constant but intermittent. It is affected by her activities; for example, when she is reaching overhead or when her shoulder is subject to load in a certain way, discomfort will result. Also, on occasion she experiences discomfort as a consequence of taking certain postures; that is, it is a matter of how she is sitting or lying.

[11] The matter of the shoulder injury has been extensively investigated. The conclusion which emerges is that there is no detectable damage to her shoulder structure. The pain is muscular or musculoligamentous in nature. There is no reason to believe that surgical intervention would be warranted. Given its persistence, it is unknown whether it can be expected to resolve. Certainly the prognosis for a complete recovery is guarded: the shoulder pain may not resolve…

[32] In all the circumstances, I am influenced by the fact that the effect of this injury does cause the plaintiff discomfort of a discernible sort and that occurs not infrequently, both at work and while doing other things.

[33] I am of the view that an appropriate award under this head is $50,000.

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a chronic shoulder injury.

In this week’s case (Milliken v. Rowe) the 37 year old plaintiff suffered a variety of injuries in a 2007 collision.  The Defendant motorist admitted fault.  The Plaintiff’s most serious injury resulted in chronic shoulder pain the cause of which was described as “one of two things or both in combination which include biceps tendonitis and AC joint antropathy“.

The Plaintiff endured a variety of medical interventions none of which meaningfully resolved her injury.  Surgery was expected to have no better than a 50/50 chance of improving her injury.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $85,000 Mr. Justice Davies made the following findings:

[65] I find that the totality of the evidence establishes that the neck and shoulder pain as well as the headaches, back pain and right leg pain which Ms. Milliken has suffered since August 2007 were caused by the defendant’s negligence…

[83] Ms. Milliken was 37 when she was injured. She suffered from injuries to her right hip and back that caused significant discomfort (primarily at work). The effects of those injuries were largely resolved within about two years.

[84] Ms. Milliken also, however, suffered from right shoulder pain that did not resolve and has now been ongoing for four years. The only potential end in sight for the amelioration of the pain and suffering concerning her right shoulder is invasive surgery with about an even chance of success. Whether successful or not, the proposed complex surgery will require an extensive period of recuperation of from 3 to 6 months.

[85] I find that the pain Ms. Milliken has endured has been debilitating.

[86] While she has worked through much of it of necessity, the cost to her of doing so has been great.

[87] Her life has become a one-dimensional one in which activities unrelated to work have largely had to be put aside. She no longer has the stamina or physical ability to care for her home as she previously did and has become socially reclusive because of that and her constant tiredness.

[88] Ms. Milliken is no longer able to play with her grandchildren as she once did due to pain and discomfort in her shoulder. She no longer participates in making crafts or enjoying recreational pursuits with her family.

[89] Her injuries have also exacerbated the physical challenges which she now faces in caring for her husband and that prevented her from taking on some of the work around the home and yard for which he was previously responsible…

[91] Ms. Milliken’s suffering will also not end with this litigation.

[92] At minimum she must endure complex shoulder surgery and a lengthy period of rehabilitation in which she will continue to be unable to enjoy life as she once did. Her likely future enjoyment of life is also compromised by the prospect that the surgery may be wholly or partially unsuccessful.

[93] The totality of the evidence satisfies me that there is no question that Ms. Milliken will continue to suffer pain and suffering as well as loss of her enjoyment of life at least until after rehabilitation from surgery to her shoulder.

[94] There is also a substantial likelihood that she will suffer ongoing pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment into the future after the shoulder surgery…

[105] I award Ms. Milliken non-pecuniary damages of $85,000.

The value of a personal injury case has little to do with the number of doctor visits a Plaintiff has.  I’ve discussed this topic previously.  Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Kamloops Registry, further addressing this matter.

In today’s case, (Tarzwell v. Ewashina) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2007 motor vehicle collision.  She suffered from chronic soft tissue injuries affecting her trapezius muscles and low back.   The injuries were on-going at the time of trial and the Court accepted that the symptoms would linger into the future.  Non-Pecuniary damages of $60,000 were awarded.  Prior to arriving at this assessment Mr. Justice Dley provided the following comments making it clear that the number of doctor visits does not measure the quantum of a personal injury claim:

[67] If a plaintiff’s claim was to be measured by the number of doctors seen or by the number of medical consultations attended, then that would unjustly marginalize victims such as Ms. Tarzwell. She has chosen not to burden the medical system with unnecessary visits to physicians who would give her no further advice than what she had already been provided and followed. She should not be penalized for that.

This case is also worth reviewing for the Court’s comments to the lawyers involved in the litigation for their efficient use of Court time.  Illustrating that meaningful claims can be litigated with little Court time Mr. Justice Dley provided the following compliments:

[5] This case was presented with uncompromising efficiency. Counsel were meticulous in focusing on those matters that were actually in dispute.

[6] The evidence was concluded in a day along with an additional half day for argument.

[7] The medical evidence consisted of two reports. There was no wasted expense by tendering marginal evidence that would have done little to assist the Court.

[8] A case that takes little time to present does not mean that damages are nominal. It is the quality and substance of the evidence that matters. Style should never trump substance.

[9] If an example of proportionality needed a model case, counsel have succeeded here in illustrating how litigation can be conducted.

Reasons for judgement were released last month by the BC Supreme Court, Chilliwack Registry, addressing damages from a 2006 motor vehicle collision.

In last month’s case (Felix v. Hearne) the Plaintiff was driving her vehicle when her boyfriend, who was riding as a passenger, “grabbed the steering wheel causing the vehicle to leave the highway and overturn.”  He was killed in the collision and the Plaintiff suffered numerous physical injuries.

The passenger was found at fault for the crash.   The Plaintiff, who was a verbatim reporter, suffered injuries which seriously compromised her abilities both vocationally and recreationally.  Global damages of just over $800,000 were assessed including non-pecuniary damages of $200,000.  In arriving at this figure Mr. Justice Grist provided the following reasons:

[38] It is now six years subsequent to the collision and, although there have been some areas of recovery, there would appear to be, at best, only a modest hope for further improvement…

[47] On balance, I think an appropriate assessment in light of this authority in this case to be $200,000.00 in non-pecuniary damages. The combined effects of residual physical injuries, specifically the neck and back pain and associated headaches, loss of function in her left wrist, and injury to her left shoulder and ankle, along with the pervasive emotional disorder resulting from the effects of her injuries and the trauma of the collision, have been devastating to Ms. Felix’s personal and vocational life. She has lost much of her ability to be self-reliant and to participate in many of the activities that have been the foundation of her social life. The injuries are now assessed as chronic and I think she will continue to struggle with the depression and emotional upset that has marked the six years subsequent to her injuries.

It is worth noting that none of the Plaintiff’s evidence was tested through cross-examination as the Defendant’s estate did not file an appearance and ICBC, for reasons that were not clear in the judgement, “declined to participate” in the defence of the claim.  Despite this, the case still has value as a precedent for non-pecuniary damage assessments for chronic pain following a motor vehicle collision.

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a chronic shoulder and low back injury caused by a motor vehicle collision.

In this week’s case (Juraski v. Beek) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2007 collision.  Fault was admitted by the Defendant.  The Plaintiff suffered a chronic shoulder injury which remained symptomatic at the time of trial.  Her prognosis for complete recovery was poor.  She also had mechanical back pain.  In assessing the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages at $75,000 Madam Justice Humphries provided the following reasons:

[42] Dr. Regan, an orthopaedic surgeon, diagnosed myofascial pain in the plaintiff’s left trapezius and cervical spine, anterior left shoulder pain, and chronic left mechanical low back pain.  His report is dated November 26, 2010.

[43] He testified that Ms. Juraski has supraspinus tendonosis, a chronic condition of the shoulder tendon.  He said a tear was possible but upon seeing the MRI of March 31, 2011, agreed it did not support that suggestion.  He agreed with Dr. Nobel (see below) that pain block injections would allow more accurate diagnosis, but in view of the passage of time, he did not foresee the shoulder pain settling…

[77] The accident occurred 4 years ago.  I accept that the plaintiff now lives with chronic pain in her shoulder and lower back and will continue to do so, although exercise and strengthening may alleviate her symptoms to some degree, particularly in her back.  On a consideration of the medical evidence, including that of Dr. Leith, there is a difference of opinion about the mechanisms causing Ms. Juraski’s pain.  However, there is no question but that the chronic pain in her shoulder area and lower back are caused by the accident.

[78] The plaintiff is obviously a determined and energetic person who will do what is required to make ends meet.  However, I am satisfied the quality of her life has been altered by the pain she copes with daily.  She is unable to keep up the high standards of housework and household accomplishments she maintained before the accident.  To some extent, her ability to live her life as she did is affected by her unenviable work schedule - without that she would probably be able to devote more time to housework and her garden, but she would still have to cope with chronic pain as she did it.  Her symptoms are not incapacitating - she works hard and long hours- but her enjoyment of life is considerably curtailed.  She admitted on discovery that her sleep is back to normal.

[79] However, given the time that has passed, the doctors, while recommending strengthening exercises and other treatments, are guarded in their prognosis for improvement in pain and discomfort in the future, especially with her shoulder.  On the whole, while some improvement in symptoms might be forthcoming through exercise and core strengthening, the medical practitioners suggest she will have to learn to live with and manage chronic pain.

[80] The defendant did not argue that the plaintiff has failed to mitigate her damages.  She has followed the treatment recommendations offered to her, although her busy work schedule interferes with her ability to exercise and stretch.

[81] While there are some parallels between the facts here and those outlined in the cases cited to me, those submitted by the plaintiff tend to describe situations where there were other important effects from the accident in addition to chronic pain - for instance, depression, ongoing inability to sleep, post traumatic stress disorder, inability to work, significant reduction in energy, need for significant rehabilitation and counselling.  The cases cited by the defendant tend to deal with less severe or pre-existing symptoms, symptoms that resolved after a period of time or were improving, or symptoms localized to one area - either back or shoulder, but not both.

[82] It is clear that awards for non-pecuniary damages in cases of chronic pain vary fairly widely, and of course the symptoms and effects on each plaintiff’s life are individual.  Taking Ms. Juraski’s situation in the context of all of the cases referred to me, I conclude that an appropriate award for non-pecuniary damages is $75,000.

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, assessing damages for a shoulder injury caused by a motor vehicle collision and subsequently aggravated by an at-work incident.

In last week’s case (Kaleta v. MacDougall) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2008 collision.  Fault was admitted by the Defendant.  As a consequence the Plaintiff suffered from “chronic neck and left shoulder pain”.  The symptoms were due to soft tissue injury and there was a “moderate probability” for long lasting symptoms.

Prior to trial the Plaintiff aggravated his shoulder in an at-work incident.  He made a WorkSafe Claim as a consequence.  ICBC argued the damages need to be reduced as a result.  Mr. Justice Truscott disagreed relying on the BC Court of Appeal’s decision Bradley v. Groves.  In assessing damages at $80,000 the Court provided the following useful comments:

[33] In Dr. McAnulty’s last assessment on March 3, 2011 the plaintiff again reported with chronic neck and left shoulder pain, worse at night. His prior knee and back pain had resolved.

[34] Dr. McAnulty’s diagnostic impression at the time was of chronic myofascial pain post motor vehicle accident affecting the left neck and shoulder and the plaintiff was advised to continue with activity as tolerated.

[35] In his summary and conclusions in his report of March 6, 2011, Dr. McAnulty says that despite the many interventions the plaintiff still remains symptomatic and now has more likely than not reached the point of maximum medical improvement, especially since two and one-half years have elapsed since the motor vehicle accident. He says the plaintiff may well suffer chronic myofascial pain in the future…

[57] I accept the opinion of Dr. McAnulty that the workplace shoulder injury of June 11, 2009 was an aggravation of the shoulder injury suffered in the motor vehicle accident which remained symptomatic, and was not a new injury unconnected to the previous injury…

[61] As a matter of law the defendant remains responsible for continuing problems with the left shoulder after June 11, 2009 (Bradley v. Groves, 2010 BCCA 361)…

[63] It may be concluded from all this that the prospect of a chronic injury in the nature of a permanent or indefinite injury is only a possibility, but in Dr. McAnulty’s report he also says that the patient has more likely than not reached the point of maximal medical improvement and that statement reflects a standard of probability and not possibility.

[64] It is my conclusion that Dr. McAnulty considers the shoulder pain to be a chronic or long-lasting pain as a moderate probability, and I will assess the plaintiff’s damages on that basis…

[70] I award the plaintiff $80,000 for general damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, providing comments critical of the practice of obtaining medical opinion evidence without accompanying physical examination of a Plaintiff.

In this week’s case (Ruscheinski v. Biln) the Plaintiff was involved in three collisions.  She sustained soft tissue injuries to her her neck and shoulder in the initial crash.  The following crashes had a ‘cascading effect‘ on these injuries resulting in chronic pain with partial disability.  Non-Pecuniary Damages of $85,000 were assessed.

In the course of the trial the Court heard from competing expert witnesses.  The Defendant’s expert never examined the Plaintiff.  For this reason the Court preferred the evidence of the Plaintiff’s experts and provided the following critical comments:

[82] Dr. Turnbull, a neurosurgeon, provided expert evidence on behalf of the defendants. He was the only medical expert whose opinion was adduced as part of the defendants’ case. His assessment is set out in his report dated April 26, 2011.  In his report, Dr. Turnbull opined:

Ms. Ruscheinski evidently suffered soft tissue injuries in the MVA of February 24, 2006 which may have been aggravated by the MVAs of September 9 and September 17, 2006.

[83] In my opinion, Dr. Turnbull’s choice of the word “evidently” results from the fact that he did not conduct an examination of Ms. Ruscheinski. Dr. Turnbull has not met, nor has he ever examined Ms. Ruscheinski. His opinions are based solely on his review of medical records.

[84] Dr. Turnbull also expressed in an opinion, in his report, that although Ms. Ruscheinski’s “soft tissue injuries have had ample time to heal”, her “symptoms may persist for some time.” He does not recommend any further treatment because, he explained, “passive treatments conducted more than two years after soft tissue injury are recognized as having little value.”

[85] I prefer the evidence of Drs. Feldman and Wasti over the defence expert, Dr. Turnbull. I accept Dr. Feldman’s opinion (supported by Dr. Wasti) that meeting a patient, obtaining their history directly, and conducting a thorough examination are essential to provide an accurate diagnosis of a patient’s injuries and to determine an appropriate prognosis.

[86] In my opinion, when dealing with cases where chronic pain is suggested or suspected, an examination of a patient that is designed to look for objective evidence of injury, such as muscle spasm, as opposed to feigned pain behaviour, coupled with an appropriate and thoughtful approach to taking a patient’s history, will lead to a diagnosis and prognosis that is much more reliable than a records review. I accept Dr. Feldman’s evidence that without a physical examination of Ms. Ruscheinski, it would not have been possible to detect the winging of her scapula.

[87] Dr. Turnbull agreed in cross-examination that muscle spasm and tenderness provide an objective basis for a diagnosis and prognosis. Those objective findings were found by Drs. Feldman and Wasti. Dr. Turnbull is not in a position to contradict the findings of Drs. Wasti and Feldman because he did not examine Ms. Ruscheinski. Further, Dr. Turnbull did not address Dr. Feldman’s findings, the findings from the flexion/extension x-rays, nor the focused treatment recommended by Dr. Feldman that consists of active and passive treatments. Finally, I wish to note that Dr. Turnbull acknowledged that most of his patients with neck and back pain do not have a history of being involved in motor vehicle accidents.

[88] My view of the matter is also supported by the remarks of Burnyeat J. in Dhaliwal v. Bassi, 2007 BCSC 549, 73 B.C.L.R. (4th) 177, where he wrote at paras. 2-3:

[2]        The role of an expert is to assist the Court. I am not assisted by receiving the “opinion” from a psychiatrist who has not seen a person and who bases his opinion only on documentation made available to him where much of that documentation will ultimately not be in evidence. Ordinarily, counsel will provide the factual assumptions to the expert that counsel will then proceed to prove in evidence. Those factual assumptions should be clearly stated in the statement of the expert. It is not for an expert to merely review a number of documents, many of which will not be in evidence and make certain findings of fact. …

[3]        As well, the Court has commented a number of times on it being inadvisable to rely on the opinion of a medical advisor who has not seen a plaintiff: see for instance Parish v. Scott, [1966] B.C.J. (Q.L.) No. 2839 (B.C.S.C.) at paras. 5 and 29. …

Adding to this site’s ICBC Case Summary Archives, reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, assessing non-pecuniary damages for a traumatic brain injury sustained in a BC vehicle collision.

In this week’s case (Meghji v. Lee) the Plaintiff was struck by a vehicle while walking in a marked cross-walk in 2003.  Both the Defendant driver and BC Ministry of Transportation and Highways were found at fault for the crash.  The former for failing to keep a proper lookout while driving, the latter for designing the intersection at question with inadequate overhead lighting.  The driver was found 90% at fault with the Ministry shouldering 10% of the blame.

The Plaintiff suffered a fracture near her left shoulder, left elbow, ankle, knee and a traumatic brain injury.   The consequences of these were expected to cause permanent dysfunction.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $125,000 Mr. Justice Johnston provided the following reasons:

[270] Based upon the evidence of Dr. Ali and Mr. Brozak of the substantial change noted in Ms. Meghji during this time, as supported by similar observations from Ms. Chauncey’s and Ms. Wyeth’s description of Ms. Meghji’s abilities in her math class and as a teaching assistant before the accident, I conclude that Ms. Meghji has more likely than not suffered a brain injury in the accident, and that the combination of the effects of the brain injury and the depression and chronic pain disorder, which I also find was caused by the accident or flows from injuries suffered in the accident, are so inextricably intertwined that they cannot possibly be disentangled.

[271] In all of the circumstances, the defendants are ordered to pay Ms. Meghji $125,000 for non-pecuniary damages for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities and enjoyment of life.

This case is also worth reviewing for the Court’s application of the ‘adverse inference’ principle.  In the course of the lawsuit the Plaintiff’s lawyers had her assessed by a neurologist.  The neurologist did not tender evidence at trial.  Mr. Justice Johnston used his discretion to draw an adverse inference in these circumstances finding that the privately hired doctor likely did not have helpful evidence to give in support of the Plaintiff’s claim.  The court provided the following reasons: