ICBC Law

Section 106 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Regulation permits ICBC to reduce compensation by any amount paid by another “insured claim” in claims for injuries caused by unidentified motorists or uninsured motorists under section 24 and section 20 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act .  Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing whether wage loss benefits paid by an employer are an ‘insured claim‘.  In short the Court held that they are not.

In last week’s case (Loeppky v. ICBC) the Plaintiff, a police officer, was injured in a hit and run collision.  ICBC accepted the crash was caused through the fault of an unidentified motorist.  The Plaintiff sought compensation for his damages including past wage loss.  During his time away from work his employer paid him wage replacement benefits.  ICBC argued these payments were an ‘insured claim‘ and therefore had to be deducted from his ICBC claim.  Madam Justice Grey disagreed and refused to make the deduction.  The Court provided the following reasons:

[83] In my view, Mr. Loeppky’s wage replacement benefits do not constitute an “insured claim” under s. 106 of the Regulation, and therefore may not be deducted from Mr. Loeppky’s award.

[84] In Arklie v. Haskell (1986), 33 D.L.R. (4th) 458, 25 C.C.L.I. 277 (B.C.C.A.), McLachlin J.A., writing for the court at para. 26, held that a sum of money advanced by an employer to an employee that had to be repaid in the event of any recovery did not qualify as a benefit under the predecessor of s. 106.

[85] More generally, in Lopez v. Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (1993), 26 B.C.A.C. 142, 78 B.C.L.R. (2d) 157, Hollinrake J.A., writing for the court at para. 21, held that an “insured claim” for the purposes of the Regulations must still import at least some element of insurance. He went on conclude that payments made by reason of a contract of employment, without some evidence that they originate from an insurer, do not possess such an element of insurance.

[86] The sum of $6,804.77 was paid to Mr. Loeppky under the collective agreement between the Vancouver Police Union and the Vancouver Police Board. Under the terms of that agreement Mr. Loeppky must repay that amount if he recovers it in this action. There is no evidence that the payments originated from an insurer. Thus, it is not an insured claim under s. 106 and the defendant is not entitled to deduct it from any award.

Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, assessing non-pecuniary damages of $70,000 for a serious thumb injury.

In this week’s case (Dobre v. Langley) the Plaintiff cyclist was struck by a vehicle.  He suffered a right thumb “Bennett Fracture” (a fracture at the base of the thumb where it connects with the wrist).  The Plaintiff was 20 years old at the time of injury.  He required surgery to fix the fracture.  Unfortunately the Plaintiff was left with limitations of the thumb and these were expected to continue and worsen with age with the onset of post-traumatic arthritis.  In assessing the non-pecuniary damages at $70,000 Mr. Justice Brown provided the following reasons:

[58] While there are some discernible slight divergences between the opinions of Dr. Gropper and Dr. Smit, in substance they are not large ones. I accept that within the span of 15 years Mr. Dobre will experience some worsening of his degenerative arthritis that carries with it a risk that by middle age it could become severe and accompanied by a corresponding decline in function. There is also a chance Mr. Dobre could make his way into his middle age years without experiencing a significant decline in function, but the chances are greater that he will do so by then. While confident predictions about his needing future surgery are not possible, given the early onset of degenerative changes and the nature of his fracture, there is at least some risk he will require future surgery with doubtful benefit.

[59] Mr. Dobre feels dull intermittent pain at the base of his thumb, where the surgical nails were inserted. Moreover, his grip is weaker and his thumb is stiff. Prolonged grabbing and pulling brings the rapid onset of piercing pain. Prolonged writing causes discomfort and his thumb discomfort bothers him when he is writing university exams. In his part time job as a librarian, he finds he cannot hold many books when sorting them throughout the library. Due to his injury, he has to hold the books in an awkward position to avoid stressing the thumb…

[92] I find Mr. Dobre’s injuries are more akin to those in Tsougrianis, in which the 22 year old plaintiff suffered fractures to both thumbs, one of which required surgery, soft tissue injuries to her neck and back, and tendonitis.  The Court found the soft tissue injuries and tendonitis would heal within a year of the trial.  With respect to the thumb injuries, the Court found the plaintiff’s right thumb injury had largely resolved itself by trial and there was “not a substantial possibility” the left thumb injury was a permanent functional disability: Tsougrianis, at para. 35.  Furthermore, the Court found the plaintiff’s pain, strength and gripping difficulties in the left thumb would eventually disappear with exercise and further surgery, with the exception of “fine precision” handiwork:Tsougrianis, at para. 36. This is not the case for Mr. Dobre.   Given the permanence of Mr. Dobre’s right thumb disability and the likely onset of arthritis, his injuries, all factors considered, appear somewhat worse than those of the plaintiff in Tsougrianis.

[93] I find an award of $70,000 for non-pecuniary damages is appropriate in the circumstances if the $5,000 assessed for loss of home making/maintenance capacity is included in that amount. I therefore award $70,000 for non-pecuniary damages, an amount that includes a specific segment of $5,000 for loss of home making/maintenance capacity.

This case is also worth reviewing for the Court’s discussion of diminished earning capacity.   Given the Plaintiff’s young age he had no set pattern of earnings prior to the injury.  In these cases it is more difficult to predict the consequences of injury on long term employment.  Mr. Justice Brown assessed damages of $60,000 for diminished earning capacity in doing so made some practical comments at paragraphs 65-74 of the reasons for judgement.

Imagine two individuals catastrophically injured due to the negligence of others.  The injuries will be totally disabling over the course of their lifetime.  The individuals are identical in every way except for their gender.  Statistics tell us that the man’s lifetime earnings absent injury would likely exceed those of the woman.  In these circumstances is it fair to award the woman less damages in a personal injury lawsuit for diminished earning capacity (future wage loss)?

The BC Court of Appeal addressed this issue in reasons for judgement released this week (Steinebach v. O’Brien).  In short the BC Court of Appeal held that while it is improper to reduce a female’s diminished earning capacity award based on “simply discriminatory” components, statistics as to the difference of lifetime earnings cannot wholly be ignored.  However, the Court went further and stated that it would be proper to offset this difference in part by adding an economic value to females statistically greater participation in child-rearing and housekeeping activities and addressing this in damages for pecuniary loss.   Mr. Justice Groberbam provided the following useful reasons for judgement:

[60] There are, in fact, a number of different components that account for the difference between women’s average earnings and those of men. Some are simply discriminatory – they reflect historical patterns of undervaluing the work that women do, and paying them less than men for similar work. The defendants appear to concede that such factors should not be used to reduce damage awards for infant female plaintiffs.

[61] It seems to me that such a concession is appropriate. It is no longer seen as acceptable that women should earn less than men simply by virtue of their sex. It would appear that such blatant discrimination is vanishing; in any event, the courts should not countenance such discrimination by incorporating it into damages awards.

[62] Others components of the difference between men’s and women’s average earnings may, indeed, reflect lifestyle choices. Of particular importance are patterns of earning related to childbearing and child-rearing. Women, to a much greater extent than men, leave the workforce or engage in part-time work so that they are able to bear and raise children.

[63] In MacCabe v. Westlock Roman Catholic Separate School District No. 110, 2001 ABCA 257, 96 Alta. L.R. (3d) 217, it was held that it was an error in principle for the trial judge not to have taken into account negative contingencies associated with childbirth and child-rearing in assessing future income loss for a female plaintiff who had indicated, before she suffered her injury, that she wished to have several children and would consider staying home with them…

[65] To some extent, I agree with the reasoning of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The fundamental purpose of tort damages is compensation of victims. It would be highly artificial to impose on that system of compensation a regime designed to deal with inequalities that are inherent in the lifestyle choices that people actually make.

[66] The difficulty I have with the approach in MacCabe, however, is that it treats child-rearing as an activity having no economic value. I do not believe that this reflects the reality for most parents who choose to withdraw from the paid workforce to raise children, or choose to take part-time work in preference to full-time work. Nor am I of the view that the law requires child-rearing to be treated as a non-economic activity.

[67] The value of child-rearing has long been recognized in the domain of family law. Spouses are treated as economic partners. Where one takes over child-rearing responsibilities that would otherwise have to be paid for or shared by a spouse, he or she is still seen as contributing to the family’s economic well-being, and this may have an effect on family asset division in the case of marital breakdown.

[68] This is not a mere quirk of family law, but the reality of most family units where one spouse withdraws from the workforce (or reduces his or her working hours) in order to raise children. Such a decision is rarely taken lightly, and is typically accompanied by a re-allocation of family resources rather than being a hardship suffered by the non-income-earning spouse alone.

[69] The burden of economic costs being a shared one, it can be misleading to represent it as simply being borne by the spouse who does not earn an income. Yet, for the purposes of earnings tables, this is exactly how the burden is reflected. For certain purposes, it would be more accurate to account for the shared burden by notionally transferring earnings from the income-earning partner to the partner who decreases his or her income in order to devote time and effort to child-rearing.

[70] Women are much more likely than men to leave the workforce temporarily or reduce their paid work in order to take on homemaking or child-rearing roles. The result is that earnings tables reflect the economic costs associated with such decisions as falling disproportionately on women. Earnings for men are thereby overstated, while those for women are understated.

[71] Even if it were to reject the idea of treating the costs associated with such decisions as shared ones, the Court would still have to adjust earnings table amounts to reflect the economic value of child-rearing. At one time, it may have been debatable whether a spouse who took on child-rearing or housekeeping responsibilities could claim compensation if, as a result of a tort, s/he became unable to continue to perform them (see Regina Graycar, “Hoovering as a Hobby and other Stories: Gendered Assessments of Personal Injury Damages” (1997) 31 U.B.C. L. Rev. 17). It is now established, however, that a person who undertakes housekeeping activities and is disabled from doing so can make a claim to pecuniary damages: Kroeker v. Jansen (1995), 123 D.L.R. (4th) 652, 4 B.C.L.R. (3d) 178 (B.C. C.A.).

[72] It seems to me that, in line with Kroeker, the courts must not presume that the absence of monetary recompense for an activity necessarily means that pecuniary damages will be unavailable to a plaintiff who is disabled from engaging in it. Because earnings tables fail to account for the value of such unpaid activities as child-rearing and housekeeping, they will tend to represent under-estimates of a plaintiff’s loss of future earnings.

No this post isn’t meant to take a swipe at economists, I just needed to get your attention since I’m discussing the ever exciting topic of positive and negative contingencies in creating present value tables.

Economic evidence often plays an important role in personal injury trials.  Competing experts often have different opinions as to which statistics should be used in valuing the present value of future losses.  Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Court of Appeal discussing these contingencies.

In today’s case (Towson v. British Columbia (Public Safety and Solicitor General)) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2002 BC motor vehicle collision.  Her vehicle was struck by an RCMP officer who ran a red light.  While fault was disputed at trial the RCMP officer was found fully responsible for the collision.

The Plaintiff suffered various injuries including a traumatic brain injury resulting in a post-concussion syndrome.  This in turn was largely disabling.   The $1.1 million damage assessment included non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) of $185,000 and a diminished earning capacity assessment of $725,000.

The Government appealed for various reasons although they were unsuccessful with the trial award being largely upheld.   Among the unsuccessful arguments was an allegation that the trial judge erred in her assessment of diminished earning capacity.  In rejecting this argument the Court  provided the following comments about the different contingencies used by competing economists:

[30] The parties each called a witness to give expert opinion evidence in economics and both expert witnesses provided present value tables based on assumptions each specified.  The experts, Mr. Pivnenko for the respondent, and Mr. Hildebrand for the appellant, were both qualified to give opinion evidence in the area of economics.  Mr. Pivnenko provided present value tables regarding the cost of future care which were very similar to the figures Mr. Hildebrand provided.  However, the evidence given by the two experts diverged on the present value tables each provided for use in arriving at future loss of earning capacity.  The difference is readily explained by the assumptions each took into account.

[31] Mr. Pivnenko provided present value tables which took into account the survival rates for B.C. women but did not take into account any other contingencies.  Based on that assumption only, Mr. Pivenko stated that the present value of an annual sum of $1,000 per year from the trial date to the respondent’s 65th birthday was $22,716.

[32] Mr. Hildebrand’s present value tables took into account not only survival rates, but also negative labour market contingencies based on an average B.C. female high school graduate.  The latter contingencies he took into account included the individual’s propensity to participate in the labour force, part-time work, and unemployment.  Mr. Hildebrand applied a 40.1% discount for those contingencies, and, on that basis, he arrived at a present value of an annual sum of $1,000 per year from the trial date to the respondent’s 65th birthday of $13,609.  Mr. Hildebrand also testified that the overall contingency applicable to B.C. men with the same degree of education would be 20% to 25% rather than 40.1%….

[37] A review of Mr. Hildebrand’s evidence in cross-examination shows that in using a 40.1% negative labour market contingency, he was reflecting only negative contingencies and he agreed that the individual circumstances of a claimant would have to be considered in arriving at any percentage contingency adjustment.

[38] It is plain from her reasons that the judge did not accept that Mr. Hildebrand’s 40.1% negative labour market contingency ought to be applied, without modification, to a projection of the respondent’s likely income from employment to age 65.  The judge found, among other things, that the respondent was “in a better position than the average B.C. high school graduate at the time of the accident, because of her job at the [Justice Institute]”.  The judge also found “a realistic chance” that the respondent “would have attained promotions, and that she would have continued to work despite having children”.

[39] It is also plain from her reasons that the judge did apply a negative contingency discount well beyond the survival rates for B.C. women, which Mr. Pivnenko had used to arrive at the present value of an annual sum of $1,000 per year from the trial date to the respondent’s 65th birthday of $22,716…

[41] For the trial judge to arrive at the present value figure to be applied in this case, taking into account both positive and negative contingencies, could not be an exercise in precision.   To the extent that such an exercise is susceptible of explanation, the trial judge provided more than adequate reasons.  From her reasons, it is plain that she considered the respondent’s chances of recovery to be poor.  In view of that finding, and the legal principles she set out by reference to relevant case authorities, I see no reason to conclude that the trial judge overlooked the slight chance of the respondent recovering to the point of being able to seek some employment.

As previously discussed, if you sue for damages as a result of personal injuries you have a duty to minimize you losses.  If you fail to take reasonable efforts to do so the damages you are entitled to can be reduced.  This legal principle is called “failure to mitigate“.

The most common argument addressing mitigation relates to following doctor’s advice.  If a person fails to follow medical advice without good reason their damages can be reduced.  Earlier this week the BC Court of Appeal had an opportunity to address an interesting mitigation issue: Does a Plaintiff fail to mitigate their damages when they ignore their doctor’s advice to take time away from work?

In this week’s case (Bradshaw v. Matwick) the Plaintiff was in a 2006 rear-end crash.   Following the collision the Plaintiff’s doctor “recommended that the plaintiff stop working and enter into a full-time rehabilitation program.  He felt that the plaintiff’s recovery would be hastened by entering into such a program”  The Plaintiff did not follow this advice.  When asked why he explained that he simply could not afford time away from work testifying that “his financial situation was such that he needed to continue working“.

At trial the Plaintiff was awarded just over $268,000 in total damages for his injuries and loss.  The Defendant appealed arguing, amongst other things, that the trial judge erred in failing to reduce the damages for the Plaintiff’s failure to follow his doctor’s advice.  The BC Court of Appeal disagreed with this argument finding that the Plaintiff’s decision to continue working out of financial need was reasonable.  In dismissing this aspect of the appeal the Court provided the following helpful reasons:

[16]         The trial judge found that the plaintiff had acted reasonably in returning to work in August 2006, and that he had generally followed recommendations for rehabilitative exercise:

[40]          In regards to Mr. Bradshaw continuing to work in August 2006, against his doctor’s advice, Mr. Bradshaw had no choice.  The plaintiff had a less than accommodating employer.  The plaintiff was aware that in order to keep his job, he had to work at his job.  It would be reasonable for the plaintiff to conclude based on his job circumstances, that taking a substantial time off to recover would result in the loss of his job.  The effects for the plaintiff in this respect would be devastating.  He has worked for Rebelle for over twenty years.  He has limited reading and writing skills which would make any new job which would require training difficult for him.  It was not unreasonable for the plaintiff, in light of this circumstance, to make the decision to struggle on and hope for the best in his recovery while continuing to work.

[41]          Additionally, the plaintiff had significant commitments to a wife and two children.  He, at best, earns a moderate to good income in the $50,000 range.  It is highly unlikely that he could have survived on the modest wage loss funds available to him either through the defendants’ insurer or through the employment insurance program.  His wife, Ms. Bennett, has only ever worked part-time and although she no doubt contributes to the family expenses, the household consists of two adults, and two children, in a home they own with a mortgage.

[17]         On appeal, the defendants point to evidence from the plaintiff’s doctor to the effect that he would have given the plaintiff a medical note recommending full-time rehabilitation if one had been requested, and to the employer’s evidence that it would have given the plaintiff a leave of absence if such a note had been provided.  They also argue that the plaintiff presented only minimal evidence of his financial position in August 2006, and contend that the trial judge relied on inadmissible hearsay.  The defendants say that, in the face of that evidence, the judge’s finding that it was reasonable for the plaintiff to return to work represents a palpable and overriding error.

[18]         I am unable to accept the defendants’ assertion.  There was considerable evidence concerning difficulties in the relationship between the plaintiff and his employer.  In the circumstances, it was open to the trial judge to accept that the plaintiff had a reasonable apprehension that he might lose his employment if he did not return to work.  While the evidence of the plaintiff’s precise financial position in August 2006 was limited, there was sufficient information before the trial judge to allow him to conclude that the plaintiff’s financial position was not sufficiently secure to allow him to risk losing his job.

[19]         In any event, even if it had been unequivocally established that the plaintiff’s recovery was delayed by his decision to return to work in August 2006, it would not prove that the decision resulted in an exacerbation of his damages.  The plaintiff’s immediate wage losses were significantly reduced by his decision to return to work.  It is not at all apparent that any consequential increase in his non-pecuniary losses or subsequent wage losses would have offset the immediate gains.  Thus, the defendants have failed to show that the decision to return to work in August 2006 resulted in any net increase in the plaintiff’s damages.

If you are injured through the fault of another and your injuries effect your ability to earn a living you can seek compensation for ‘diminished earning capacity‘.  Valuing this loss requires an assessment instead of a mathematical calculation.  Since these losses are ‘assessed‘ this gives rise to a wide latitude of legally justifiable awards. This latitude was discussed in Reasons for Judgement released yesterday by the BC Court of Appeal.

In yesterday’s case (Mackie v. Gruber) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2006 BC motor vehicle collision.  At trial the Plaintiff was awarded almost $250,000 including $130,000 for loss of future earning capacity.

Both the Plaintiff and ICBC appealed this award.  The Plaintiff argued it was too low claiming that the judge made a “palpable and over-riding error” in failing to consider the fair value of the Plaintiff’s entrepreneurial capacity.   ICBC appealed arguing that the award was too high since “the Plaintiff returned to work within two weeks of the accident and her past loss of earnings up to the date of trial was only $19,546“.

The BC Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not err and dismissed both appeals.  In doing so the Court provided the following reasons addressing the wide latitude of permissible results in quantifying diminished earning capacity:

[18]         Quantifying an award for loss of future earning capacity is a notoriously difficult judicial task given the multitude of factors and future uncertainties at play. It is not a mathematical calculation, but a matter of assessment and judgment, guided by the basic principle that a plaintiff is entitled to be placed in the same position she would have been in but for the accident, and directed at producing an award that is reasonable and fair to all parties: Rosvold v. Dunlop, 2001 BCCA 1, 84 B.C.L.R. (3d) 158.

[19]         In Pallos, the case referred to by the trial judge, Mr. Justice Finch set out a number of approaches to this task:

[43]      The cases to which we were referred suggest various means of assigning a dollar value to the loss of capacity to earn income. One method is to postulate a minimum annual income loss for the plaintiff’s remaining years of work, to multiply the annual projected loss times the number of years remaining, and to calculate a present value of this sum. Another is to award the plaintiff’s entire annual income for one or more years. Another is to award the present value of some nominal percentage loss per annum applied against the plaintiff’s expected annual income. In the end, all of these methods seem equally arbitrary. It has, however, often been said that the difficulty of making a fair assessment of damages cannot relieve the court of its duty to do so. In all the circumstances, I would regard a fair award under this head to be the sum of $40,000.

[20]         I am not persuaded that the trial judge’s approach in this case resulted in an award that was unfair or unreasonable. In my view, both the appeal and cross-appeal must fail.

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for loss related to chronic pain.

In last week’s case (Zen v. Readhead) the 45 year old plaintiff was injured in a 2005 motor vehicle collision.  Fault for the crash was admitted by the Defendant.    The Defendant’s lawyer argued that the plaintiff sustained only minor injuries submitting that the plaintiff “is an opportunist who has intentionally exaggerated his pain behavior and reporting in the hope of being rewarded significant compensation.”

The Court did not take kindly to this attack and rejected the Defendant’s submission with the following criticism “There are times when a trial judge listening to submissions about the credibility of a party is left to wonder if judge and counsel have heard the same evidence. This is such a case.”

The Court went on to award the Plaintiff damages of just over 2 Million Dollars for his accident related injuries and losses.  The majority of this was related to past and future income loss.  The Plaintiff was a high functioning Vancouver businessman and his losses were assessed reflecting his pre-accident income earning capacity.

Madam Justice Fenlon assessed the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages at $110,000.  His injuries included low back and pelvic pain, headaches, a mood disorder, impaired sleep, dizziness, cognitive dysfunction, elbow pain and plantar fascitits.   In arriving at this figure the Court provided the following reasons:

[54]         Awards of damages in other cases provide a guideline only. I must apply the factors listed in Stapley to Mr. Zen’s particular case. Mr. Zen is now 45-years-old. He used to be an outgoing, charismatic athlete who weekly ran 40 kms, did the Grouse Grind, and took an active role in the lives of his daughters, all while working long days in the family business including most Saturdays. Today he is a different man. He is sleep-deprived and in chronic pain, which makes him irritable and prone to frustration and anger. He can no longer push himself athletically, which was a central part of his life and the way he managed stress. He has a diminished role in the lives of his daughters, and in particular his youngest daughter, Olivia. Mr. Zen’s relationship with his wife has been significantly affected and he has, in his words, “missed out on the best years of [his] life”.

[55]         Taking all of this into account and excluding from this analysis the pain and inconvenience caused by his left knee before the March 2010 surgery, I find that Mr. Zen is entitled to non-pecuniary damages of $110,000.

When a BC motor vehicle accident tort claim goes to trial and a judge or jury awards pecuniary damages over $100,000 s. 99 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act requires the award be paid periodically where it is “in the best interests of the plaintiff” to do so.  Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing this area of law.

In last week’s case (Bransford v. Yilmazcan) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2003 collision.  She developed Thoracic Outlet Syndrome and experienced disability related to this.  Her claim went to trial where she was awarded just over $1.2 million by a Jury.  This award was reduced somewhat by the BC Court of Appeal.

Ultimately the Plaintiff was awarded $436,000 for loss of future earning capacity.  ICBC applied under section 99 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act to pay this portion of the judgement in monthly installments at $1,357 per month arguing that this would be in the ‘best interests‘ of the Plaintiff.  Madam Justice Griffin disagreed and dismissed the applicaiton.  In doing so the Court provided the following useful reasons:

[51]         The defendants argued that since they were only seeking a partial structured judgment, rather than a structured judgment that applied to the whole of the future damages award, the plaintiff will be left with sufficient flexibility to meet any fluctuating needs.  I am not convinced this is an entirely fair approach.  The future care award is allocated for the plaintiff’s future care needs.  Normally a person uses income to pay for extraordinary living expenses or to make choices such as repayment of debt.  If the loss of future earning capacity award is structured, the plaintiff will lose this flexibility. Such a loss of flexibility is not cured merely because only a partial structured judgment is sought.

[52]         In this case, a factor that weighs heavily is the fact that the proposed structured judgment will run for 38 years.  That means, if a structured judgment is ordered, that for 38 years of this plaintiff’s life, she will not have the ability to make her own choices about her investments or her needs, beyond what she can do with receipt of the monthly periodic sum.  None of the evidence proffered by the defendants suggested that a fixed rate of return of 2.5% would be a safe investment over 38 years.  If the financial landscape changes drastically in 25 years, the plaintiff will not have the flexibility to adapt if she is subject to the structured judgment.  However, if the financial landscape changes drastically in the next 25 years, and she has been fiscally conservative in managing a lump sum award of damages, she will have the flexibility to deal with the change in circumstances.

[53]         I come back to the principle enunciated in Lomax, namely that a damage award is the plaintiff’s own property.  Underlying this point, in my view, is the common sense observation that a central aspect of one’s dignity and humanity is the ability to control one’s own destiny by the freedom to make one’s own choices.  Where a plaintiff has been injured through the negligence of defendants, such that she has suffered a significant loss of earning capacity, as here, she has already lost some personal dignity in that her future choices have been limited due to her injuries.  In this case the plaintiff would lose additional dignity and autonomy if her ability to make her own decisions about her damages award was taken away.

[54]         Having observed the plaintiff’s evidence at trial and on this hearing before me, I was impressed with her capabilities.  I observed that she was a person who was a “go-getter” before her injuries, and she remains someone with an independent and strong personality.  I have considered all of the factors referred to above, and weighed the risks and benefits of a structured judgment against the risks and benefits of a lump sum award.  I conclude that an order that the loss of future earning capacity award be structured would not be in the best interests of this plaintiff.

[55]         I therefore dismiss the defendants’ application.

Many of you may be aware of ICBC’s current “demystifying” campaign.   There are many misunderstood topics related to injury lawsuits and one of the most prominent is that of mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI).  Reasons for judgement were recently released by the BC Supreme Court, Chilliwack Registry, demystifying some of the arguments that are commonly raised in opposition to these claims.

In today’s case (Madill v. Sithivong) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2004 BC motor vehicle collision.  The Plaintiff’s vehicle was struck on the passenger side by the Defendant’s vehicle.  The issue of fault was admitted by the Defendant with the trial largely focussing on the value of the Plaintiff’s claim.

The collision was not significant, from a vehicle damage perspective, causing little over $1,700 in damage to the Plaintiff vehicle.   Despite this the Plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury in the crash.  ICBC argued that the injuries were not serious in part because the vehicle damage was modest, the Plaintiff had a ‘normal‘ Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15/15 noted on the ambulance crew report and that the hospital records relating to the treatment of the Plaintiff noted that he suffered from “No LOC (loss of consciousness)” and “zero amnesia“.

The Plaintiff called evidence from Dr. Hunt, a well respected neurosurgeon, who gave evidence that the above facts were not determinative of whether the Plaintiff suffered from serious consequences related to MTBI.  Madam Justice Morrison was persuaded by Dr. Hunts’ evidence and accepted that the Plaintiff suffered from long term consequences as a result of an acquired brain injury.  In rejecting the defence arguments Madam Justice Morrison provided the following ‘demystifying‘ reasons:

[112]     Dr. Hunt said he tries to concentrate on the individual.  He finds it helpful to see the notes of the family doctor, which deal with initial complaints, as do the notes of the ER doctor and responders.  But he notes that those doctors are very busy, and things get overlooked.  The same is true with an ambulance crew.  Dr. Hunt stated there may be no loss of consciousness, but there may be a loss of awareness.  An ambulance crew may give a 15 score for the Glasgow scale, indicating normal, but that could be misleading.  He also noted that someone may be described as being in good health pre-accident, but that would not mean he would not have issues.

[113]     Dr. Hunt disagreed that the best evidence of whether the plaintiff was an amnesiac, were notes at the hospital of “no LOC” and “zero amnesia”.  It was the evidence of Dr. Hunt that no matter how many times you see those terms, that a patient is alert and wide awake, that sometimes in looking at crew reports, the necessary information is not there.  A person does not need to strike his head for a concussion to have occurred.  It need only have been a shaking.

[114]     It is important to explain what a mild traumatic brain injury is, he stressed; Dr. Hunt referred to the many concussions in sports.  He said it is important to look at what happened following the accident, what symptoms have occurred and are continuing to occur.  Patients often deny a loss of consciousness or a loss of awareness, and it may be so fleeting that they may well be unaware.  But if the head has been shaken or jarred enough, this will equal a concussion, which is the same as a mild traumatic brain injury.  There may be no indication of bruises on the head, but it still could be a concussion.  Dr. Hunt noted that something prevented the plaintiff from exiting the vehicle, so the Jaws of Life was used.

[115]     Dr. Hunt noted that Dr. Tessler agreed that the plaintiff had a cerebral concussion in his initial report, but it was the opinion of Dr. Hunt that Dr. Tessler was not up to date on mild traumatic brain injuries.

[116]     In his evidence, Dr. Hunt listed some of the symptoms that are compatible with a concussion having occurred:  headaches, altered vision, balance difficulties, general fatigue, anxiety, memory disturbance, inability to manage stress.  “A concussion is a mild traumatic brain injury.  We no longer grade concussions.”

[117]     I found Dr. Hunt to be an excellent witness.  He was cautious, detailed, thoughtful, low key, thorough and utterly professional.  In cross-examination, he gave a minor clinic on mild traumatic brain injuries.  He was subjected to a rigorous, lengthy and skilful cross-examination, which only served to expand upon and magnify his report and opinions.

[118]     He commented on the history of Mr. Madill prior to the accident, pointing to a number of things that may have caused excessive jarring or shaking of the head, even if there had been no symptoms of concussion.  He believes that the first responders’ observations are not always accurate as to what actually happened.  He said he himself may not have identified problems of concussion at the scene of the accident.  Ninety percent of people with concussions have headaches.  They have difficulty describing the headaches, and they are not the same as migraine or tension headaches.

[119]     Dr. Hunt was further critical of Dr. Tessler in opining that Dr. Tessler had diluted his opinion, and that he had concerns with the report of Dr. Tessler.  He felt that Dr. Tessler was still “in the dark ages” with regard to mild traumatic brain injuries, that he has not had the advantages that Dr. Hunt has had in working with sports brain injuries.  “Concussion is cumulative.”

[120]     I found the report and the evidence of Dr. Hunt persuasive.  He came across as an advocate of a better understanding of concussions or mild traumatic brain injuries, not as an advocate on behalf of the plaintiff.

In addition to the above, two other topics were of interest in todays’ case.  Evidence was presented by ICBC though private investigtors they hired who conducted video surveillance of the Plaintiff.  The Court found that this evidence was of little value but prior to doing so Madam Justice Morrison made the following critical observations:

[74] Much of the videotaping occurred while both the plaintiff and the private investigator were moving on streets and highways, driving at the speed of other traffic.  The investigators testified they drove with one hand on the wheel and the other hand operating the video camera, up at the side of their head, to allow them to view through the camera what they were taping.  That continues to be their practice today, according to at least one of the investigators, which was interesting, considering from whom they receive their instructions, a corporation dedicated to road safety.

Lastly, this case is worth reviewing for the Court’s discussion of diminished earning capacity.  In short the Plaintiff was self employed with his spouse.  Despite his injuries he was able to continue working but his spouse took on greater responsibility following the collision.  The Court recognized that the Plaintiff suffered from a diminisehd earning capacity and awarded $650,000 for this loss.  Paragraphgs 193-210 of the judgement contain the Court’s discussion of this topic.

As previously discussed, the new BC Civil Rules have changed the test of document production in the pre-trial discovery process.  The test has been narrowed from documents “relating to every matter in question in the action“ to “all documents that are or have been in a parties possession or control that could be used by any party to prove or disprove a material fact” and “all other documents to which a party intends to refer at trial“.  In addition to this the Court must take the concept of ‘proportionality‘ into account when considering an order to produce third party records.

Reasons for judgement were released considering this narrower obligation in the context of an ICBC claim.

In today’s case (Tai v. Lam) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2006 motor vehicle collision.  The Plaintiff was injured and claimed damages.  The Defendant asked that the Plaintiff produce his bank statements from the date of the accident onward in order to “defend against (the Plaintiff’s) claim for loss of earning capacity”  The Plaintiff refused to provide these and a motion was brought seeking production.    Master Baker dismissed the motion and made the following useful comments about document disclosure obligations under the new rules and the concept of proportionality:

[5]             I am not going to make the order sought.  I agree entirely with Mr. Bolda’s view of this, which is that it is essentially one production too far, that the information and details sought goes beyond what is reasonable, even on a redacted basis.  To ask that all the bank statements be produced is a broad, broad sweep.

[6]             Sitting here listening, it struck me, it is as if a party who commences proceedings and says, “look, I have been injured and I have suffered financial losses” is inviting some kind of a Full Monty disclosure, that they are expected to produce all financial information they might ever have out there.  Even if it is suggested or offered today that that be done on a redacted basis, it is still, in my respectful view, a requirement for production that is excessive.

[7]             It certainly raises big issues about privacy and if one says, “well, redaction would fix that”, what does it take for counsel to sit down and patiently, carefully redact their client’s bank records for four and a half years?  If that is not a question of confidentiality and privacy, it is a question of proportionality, which is just as concerning to me today as the other issues.

[8]             The banking records.  I am also persuaded by Mr. Bolda’s argument, and a  common position taken today, that the judgment will be one of assessment, not calculation, that the trial judge will have multiple facets to consider and amongst them the gross income.  And while it is for the defence to present and structure its case as it wishes, it seems to me that if it successfully attacks any of these claims for expenses it can only increase Mr. Tai’s income, and I cannot see the value in that perspective.

[9]             I know that until recently the standard in this province was Peruvian Guano and locally Dufault v. Stevens, but that standard has changed.  There has to be a greater nexus and justification for the production of the documents in a case, and I am satisfied that that standard has not been met here today, so that the application is dismissed.