ICBC Law

As previously discussed, a common occurrence following a collision is the onset of symptoms in a pre-existing, but otherwise asymptomatic, conditions.  Reasons for judgement were published this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, highlighting and assessing damages for such a scenario.

In this week’s case (Zawislak v. Karbovanec) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2009 rear-end collision.  Fault was admitted by the opposing motorist.  The Plaintiff had pre-existing, asymptomatic, degenerative disc disease in his spine.  The collision rendered this condition symptomatic resulting in on-going chronic symptoms.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $60,000 Madam Justice Gerow provided the following reasons:

[31] Dr. Cameron, a neurologist, examined Ms. Zawislak on August 24, 2011. He found signs of muscle spasm in her shoulder muscles and neck muscles, left side predominant. In Dr. Cameron’s opinion, Ms. Zawislak suffered a soft tissue injury and musculoskeletal injuries to her neck, shoulders and upper back in the motor vehicle accident. Ms. Zawislak has developed headaches associated with the neck pain as a result of the musculoskeletal injuries to her neck and shoulders that she sustained in the accident. In Dr. Cameron’s opinion, Ms. Zawislak remains partially disabled because of the ongoing upper back pain, headaches and neck pain which had resulted from the soft tissue injuries and musculoskeletal injuries in the form of a whiplash she sustained in the motor vehicle accidents.

[32] According to Dr. Cameron, 80% of the individuals over the age of 40 have degenerative disc disease and most of those individuals go around without pain until a trauma, such as a motor vehicle accident, renders their disc disease symptomatic. Trauma makes the asymptomatic condition symptomatic. Ms. Zawislak’s neck was partially degenerated and, in his opinion, her ongoing pain in her neck, with the attendant headaches, and her back are likely caused by the motor vehicle accident…

[44] In my view, the evidence establishes that the probable cause of Ms. Zawislak’s headaches, neck pain, upper back and shoulder pain is the motor vehicle accident exacerbating the pre‑existing asymptomatic degenerative disc disease. While there was some risk of her degenerative disc disease becoming symptomatic, the medical evidence was that it was likely it would not become symptomatic absent a trauma. In my opinion, this case falls within the “thin skull” rule as opposed to the “crumbling skull” rule enunciated in Athey, and the defendants are liable for Ms. Zawislak’s injuries even though they may be more severe than expected due to her pre‑existing condition…

[49] Having considered the extent of the injuries, the fact that the symptoms are ongoing three years after the accident with very little improvement, that the prognosis for full recovery is guarded, as well as the authorities I was provided, I am of the view that the appropriate award for non‑pecuniary damages is $60,000.

Keeping this site’s whiplash database current, reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, assessing damages for a soft tissue injury claim as a result of a motor vehicle collision.

In last week’s case (Carter v. Zhan) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2006 collision.  Fault was admitted.  The Plaintiff was injured in the crash and alleged the consequences were permanent.  She sought damages between $149,000-$206,000 at trial.  Despite rejecting the severity of the Plaintiff’s claims, Mr. Justice Verhoeven accepted the Plaintiff did suffer a whiplash injury of 36 months duration.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $35,000 the Court provided the following reasons:

[99] On the evidence, I accept that the plaintiff has established to the requisite standard of proof in a civil case that the accident resulted in soft tissue injuries which persisted for approximately 36 months after the accident, gradually lessening over that recovery period.  Thereafter, I conclude that she suffered from only minor lingering effects.  It follows that I am not satisfied that the plaintiff has established that her injuries are essentially permanent as she claims…

[122] In determining an appropriate non-pecuniary award to compensate the plaintiff for her losses, I set out my findings in relation to the relevant Stapley factors:

1. the plaintiff was 32 years old at the time of the accident(she is now 37);

2. she suffered mild to moderate soft tissue injuries to her neck, jaw, shoulders, back, and pelvic girdle;

3. these injuries caused her mild to moderate pain and discomfort in her neck, jaw, shoulders, back, and pelvic girdle, primarily on the left side of her body, for approximately three years and minor lingering effects thereafter, with the pain lessening gradually over those three years.  She also occasionally suffered minor chest stiffness and soreness and headaches;

4. the plaintiff’s injuries are not permanent and she is not disabled as a result of the accident;

5. the injuries caused the plaintiff some emotional pain and loss of enjoyment of life over the three-year recovery period;

6. the plaintiff was also somewhat restricted in her physical activities over that time; and

7. the plaintiff did not suffer a loss of lifestyle as a result of her injuries.

[123] Bearing in mind these factors, I find the following cases provide some assistance in determining the appropriate range for non-pecuniary damages: Cameron v. Savory, 2008 BCSC 1708, [2008] B.C.J. No. 2429 [Cameron]; Dhanoa (Litigation guardian of) v. Hui, 2008 BCSC 907, [2008] B.C.J. No. 1307 [Dhanoa]; Mullican v. Steuart, 2003 BCSC 289, [2003] B.C.J. No. 416 [Mullican]; Lane v. Ford Credit Canada Leasing Limited et al., 2003 BCSC 701, [2003] B.C.J. No. 1042 [Lane]; Gray v. Balsdon, [1996] B.C.J. No. 667 (S.C.) [Gray]; and Johnston v. Day, 2002 BCSC 480, [2002] B.C.J. No. 920 [Johnston].

[124] Considering all the circumstances, and the principles enunciated in Stapley, I assess Ms. Carter’s non-pecuniary loss at $35,000.

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for soft tissue injuries sustained in consecutive motor vehicle collisions.

In last week’s case (Liu v. Thaker) the Plaintiff was involved in two collisions, the first in October of 2007 and the second a month later.  Both collisions caused relatively minor soft tissue injuries which largely recovered in 4 months.  In assessing Non-Pecuniary Damages at $10,000 Mr. Justice Schultes made the following findings:

[58] On the whole I would say that the plaintiff’s case offered persuasive evidence of relatively minor soft-tissue injuries, rather than the unpersuasive evidence of more serious injuries that is sometimes seen in motor vehicle injury cases.

[59] I find that Mr. Liu did suffer the injuries that he described and that they were caused by the two accidents for which the defendants have admitted responsibility. These were soft-tissue injuries to the neck and shoulder which had largely resolved by the end of February 2009, about four months after the first accident…

[65] In all the circumstances, balancing the various factors, and having due regard to the range, but not being straight jacketed by it, I consider an award of $10,000 for non-pecuniary damages to be appropriate in this case.

Paragraphs 75-82 of the reasons for judgment are also worth reviewing for the Court’s reasoning in denying the Plaintiff costs findng there was no ’sufficient reason’ to sue in Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 14-1(10).

Lastly, paragraph 56 is worth reviewing for the Court’s comments addressing the Defendant’s ‘low velocity impact’ testimony.  Mr. Justice Schultes provided the following criticism:

[56] Except as to the bare contours of his involvement in the first accident, I did not find Mr. Thaker’s evidence credible. He sought to portray the impact as so slight as to be virtually negligible — a mere touching of the vehicles, in his view. But he also sought to absolve himself of the responsibility of having caused the accident, even though liability has been admitted on his behalf. This suggested somewhat of a self-serving perspective on his part, which is at odds with the reality of the situation. It also made no sense to me, if the impact had been as trivial as Mr. Thaker claimed, that he would have asked Mr. Liu if he was okay afterwards, as he described. On his version of a mere touching between the vehicles, such an inquiry would have been completely unnecessary.

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Penticton Registry, assessing damages for soft tissue injuries caused by a motor vehicle collision.

In last week’s case (Kingsfield v. Powers) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2007 collision in Oliver, BC.  Fault for the crash was disputed and ultimately the Court held that both parties were to blame with the Plaintiff shouldering 75% of the fault.

The Plaintiff suffered from chronic back pain although the Court did not accept this was caused by the collision.  The Court did, however, accept the Plaintiff suffered a whiplash injury which remained symptomatic for 7 months.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $12,000 (before the reduction for liability) Mr. Justice Barrow provided the following reasons:

[57] It follows from the foregoing that I am not satisfied that the on-going low back problems that Mr. Kingsfield is experiencing are causally related to the injuries he sustained in the motor vehicle accident.

[58] The next issue is an assessment of Mr. Kingsfield’s other injuries. They gave rise to fairly significant pain and discomfort for the first month after the accident. He was unable to do his job during that time, and when he did return to work it was to light duties for about six weeks. He continued to experience headaches until approximately mid-March and his neck was painful beyond that, perhaps until June 2008, some seven months after the accident. During this time his injuries did affect his life. He had difficulty sleeping, did not continue with his recreational activities, curling in particular, and generally felt poorly.

[59] The cases of Dolha v. Heft, 2011 BCSC 738; Morales v. Neilson, 2009 BCSC 1890; and De Leon v. Harold, 2010 BCSC 1802, are instructive in terms of quantum. All involved soft tissue injuries that resolved within a year. In Dolha the plaintiff’s significant injury was to her back and neck. Those injuries resolved within six to nine months following the accident. She was awarded $10,000 in non-pecuniary damages. In Morales the plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries to his shoulder, neck and back. While those injuries limited his activities somewhat he was able to work seven days a week in a physically demanding job since the accident. His injuries were all resolved by a year post-accident. He was awarded $11,000 in non-pecuniary damages. In De Leon, the stoic plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries which, due to her active participation, resolved substantially within two months of the accident and almost entirely within six months. She was awarded non-pecuniary damages of $12,000.

[60] I am of the view that an appropriate award of non-pecuniary damages in this case is $12,000. Mr. Kingsfield’s injuries significantly affected his life, including how he performed at work. Although he is entitled to compensation for past wage loss, I accept that the plaintiff takes pride in being able to do his job and his inability to do it was a source of significant anxiety while he awaited the resolution of his injuries.

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, assessing damages for a sacroiliac joint injury caused by a motor vehicle collision.

In last week’s case (Bartel v. Milliken) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2008 collision.  Fault was admitted by the Defendant.  Although the Defendant challenged the Plaintiff’s credibility arguing she “is exaggerating her injuries and their effect” the Court rejected this submission and found the Plaintiff suffered various soft tissue injuries which continued to flare with activity.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $35,000 Madam Justice Gerow provided the following reasons:

[26] It is apparent from a review of the whole of the evidence that Ms. Bartel suffered injuries to her neck and back in the accident which had resolved for the most part by February 2009, although she was still experiencing intermittent pain in her sacroiliac joint areas. Since then she has had flare-ups, the October 2009 incident being the most significant. Although there is some evidence of ongoing shoulder problems, the evidence is that Ms. Bartel suffered from shoulder problems prior to the accident. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that her ongoing shoulder problems are as a result of the motor vehicle accident.

[27] Both Dr. Kelly and Dr. le Nobel are of the opinion that Ms. Bartel’s prospect for full recovery is guarded. However, Dr. le Nobel is of the opinion that Ms. Bartel may have significant improvement if not complete resolution of her symptoms with injections into her back and an exercise program.

[28] Based on the evidence, I have concluded that Ms. Bartel suffered a moderate soft tissue injury to her neck, back and sacroiliac joint which resolved for the most part within seven months with occasional flare-ups. The injuries Ms. Bartel suffered have restricted her ability to engage in gardening and walking in the manner she could prior to the motor vehicle accident. It is likely there will be ongoing restrictions on her gardening as a result of the injuries…

[35] Having considered the extent of the injuries, the fact that the symptoms were largely resolved within seven months with occasional flare-ups and the ongoing restrictions on Ms. Bartel’s gardening, as well as the authorities I was provided, I am of the view that the appropriate award for non pecuniary damages is $35,000.

Another noteworthy aspect of the judgement was the Court’s rejection of the so called LVI defence.  The Defendant argued that since there was modest vehicle damage the injury itself was modest.  In rejecting this submission the Court provided the following comments:

[23] Finally, the defendants point to the fact that the accident was not severe enough to cause the ongoing symptoms Ms. Bartel complains of. The defendants’ proposition that a low velocity accident cannot cause any significant injury to a plaintiff has not been accepted in a number of cases, including Gordon v. Palmer (1993), 78 B.C.L.R. (2d) 236 (S.C.); Lubick v. Mei, 2008 BCSC 555; and Jackman v. All Season Labour Supplies Ltd., 2006 BCSC 2053. As stated in Gordon at paras. 4 and 5:

I do not subscribe to the view that if there is no motor vehicle damage then there is no injury. This is a philosophy that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia may follow, but it has no application in court. it is not a legal principle of which I am aware and I have never heard it endorsed as a medical principle.

Significant injuries can be caused by the most casual of slip and falls. Conversely, accidents causing extensive property damage may leave those involved unscathed. The presence and extent of injuries are to be determined on the basis of evidence given in court. Objectivity is thus preserved and the public does not have to concern itself with extraneous philosophies that some would impose on the judicial process.

[24] Although the severity of the accident is a factor that should be taken into consideration when determining whether Ms. Bartel suffered injuries in the motor vehicle accident and the extent of those injuries, it is not determinative of either issue. Rather the whole of the evidence must be considered in determining those issues.

Reasons for judgement were released earlier this month by the BC Supreme Court, Nanaimo Registry, assessing damages for a chronic soft tissue injury sustained in a motor vehicle collision.

In the recent case (Noon v. Lawlor) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2009 rear-end collision.  Fault was admitted by the offending motorist focusing the trial on the value of the case.  The Plaintiff sustained a chronic soft tissue injury to his neck and upper back.  The injury caused difficulties with the heavier aspects of the Plaintiff’s job as a journeyman plumber and his symptoms were expected to continue into the future.

In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $60,000 Mr. Justice Halfyard provided the following reasons:

[205] I find that the plaintiff sustained injury to the soft tissues of his neck and upper back, as a result of the collision of January 22, 2009. The plaintiff also sustained minor injuries to his forehead and to his low back. The head injury resolved in about three weeks and the plaintiff had recovered from his low back injury, within six months. The plaintiff continued to experience headaches associated with his neck injury, but the headaches had diminished in about a year to the point where they occurred only occasionally, and were not disabling.

[206] The medical experts did not offer an opinion as to the severity of the whiplash injury to the plaintiff. I find that the impact of the collision was violent and that the forces exerted on the plaintiff’s body were capable of causing significant injury. On all of the evidence, I find that the injury was at least moderate in severity.

[207] There is some medical evidence which I accept and which, tends to confirm the plaintiff’s assertion that he has been experiencing ongoing symptoms of pain. The findings of tenderness on palpation and restricted range of motion in the plaintiff’s neck are partly objective and partly subjective. But they do provide some support for the plaintiff’s trial testimony on this issue. But, in my view, the medical evidence does not confirm the plaintiff’s trial testimony as to the degree of the pain that he has been experiencing, and only partly confirms his evidence as to the extent to which his pain has impaired his physical capacities. In a case of this kind, I doubt whether any medical expert could express any conclusive opinion on these issues. To a considerable extent, medical experts must accept and rely on the plaintiff’s complaints as being true…

[225] I find that there is a substantial possibility that the plaintiff will continue to experience his present symptoms and their associated effects, indefinitely. There is no suggestion that the plaintiff’s condition will deteriorate in the future. The plaintiff is still a young man, and in my opinion, the evidence establishes a substantial possibility that he will achieve significant improvement over time. But there is also a substantial possibility that the plaintiff will never again be able to do the heavy overhead work required of a sprinkler fitter, on a regular basis…

[228] The plaintiff must be compensated for the amount of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life that he has incurred to date, as well as the amount that he will experience in the future, as the result of the injury caused by the defendant’s negligence. Having regard to the findings of fact that I have made, it is my opinion that the plaintiff should be awarded $60,000 as damages for non-pecuniary loss, and I so order.

A not uncommon pattern for many people who experience soft tissue injuries following a motor vehicle collision is an acute phase of injury followed by a gradual period of improvement where the injuries, while largely recovered, do flare with heavier activity.  Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, assessing damages for such an injury.

In last week’s case (Stein v. Kline) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2008 rear-end collision.  ICBC admitted fault on behalf of the rear driver.   The collision resulted in little vehicle damage but the Plaintiff nonetheless sustained injuries.   After a short period of disability the Plaintiff was able to resume work and over a period of several months was able to resume recreational activities.  Despite this his injuries remained vulnerable to aggravation with physical activity.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages Mr. Justice Bracken provided the following reasons:

[31] The only medical evidence is contained in the report of Dr. Smith.  His report of July 28, 2011 states:

In summary, it is my opinion that Mr. Stein suffered injuries as a result of the motor vehicle accident of June 19, 2008.  It is my opinion that he suffered a musculoligamentous strain of the neck, scapular area and low back.  The strain of the scapular area and low back were mainly on the right hand side.  After the accident he was not fit to work until July 30, 2008 and he was then on light duty for the next several weeks.  Mr. Stein was treated with physiotherapy.  He was treated with anti-inflammatory drugs and occasionally a muscle relaxant.  He was shown a stretching program for his neck and lower back and has been able to control his symptoms with these stretching exercises since stopping physiotherapy in late 2008.  Mr. Stein still gets flares of scapular area pain and low back pain if he is overly active.  He is able to participate in his work on a regular basis and does virtually all the work he did before although he tries to avoid heavy lifting.  He is fit to participate in hockey, golf and other sports although he does these less frequently than in the past.  Any overuse causes him to have some flare up of pain in the scapular area or the lower back which usually settles within a few days.  He has intermittent spasm in the neck and lower back on examinations depending on his activities in the previous few days.

It is my opinion that Mr. Ron Stein’s injuries are soft tissue in nature.  His injuries have stabilized and have been quite static for the past year with only occasional flare-ups related to overuse.  He may require some intermittent physiotherapy or massage therapy in the future if he has increased pain or spasm but generally he is managing this well with a home exercise program.  It is now more than three years since the initial injury and it is my opinion that Mr. Ronald Stein is likely to have some ongoing muscle tenderness and occasional flare-ups as he has been doing for the last several months.  His injuries are not in any bone or joint and he is not going to be subject to an increased risk of osteoarthritis.

[32] In these circumstances, it is my view that the cases of Reyes v. Pascual and Schulmeister v. Furmanak are the most comparable.  The cases referred to by the plaintiff are in my view cases where the injuries were more serious.

[33] Based on the evidence presented and a review of the applicable case law, I find an appropriate award for non-pecuniary damages in this case is $40,000.  This award is perhaps somewhat generous given the evidence, but it reflects the fact that the plaintiff is still experiencing some pain more than three years post-accident.  While he is able to continue with these activities, he has occasional limitations that are attributable to his injuries from the accident and he still experiences some activity-induced pain.

Reasons for judgement were released last week assessing damages for a permanent aggravation of pre-existing back and neck injuries as a result of a collision.

In last week’s case (Delgiglio v. British Columbia (Public Safety and Solicitor General)) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2009 collision.  His vehicle was struck by an RCMP cruiser that ran a red light.  The Defendant motorist claimed the crash happened due to faulty brakes but the Court rejected this suggestion and found the officer fully at fault.

The Plaintiff suffered from various pre-existing injuries including chronic back pain.  Despite this he was able to work.  Following the 2009 collision his injuries were aggravated and disabled the Plaintiff from his occupation as a truck driver.  The Plaintiff’s disability was expected to continue.   In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $80,000 Madam Justice Gropper made the following findings:

[91] The evidence supports, and I have found, that Mr. Del Giglio suffered a re-aggravation of his neck and lower back pain in the January 2009 accident. He has reached a plateau in his recovery. He has not returned to his baseline level of activity which he enjoyed before the accident. He has not returned to his pre-accident level of pain. Though initially optimistic, Mr. Del Giglio’s physicians are all of the view that his prognosis is “guarded at best.”

[92] Mr. Del Giglio has suffered pain and loss of enjoyment of his life. The injuries have had a serve impact. I accept that Mr. Del Giglio’s pain has been distressful and have affected his emotional state. Despite Dr. Monk’s not having diagnosed depression, Dr. Purtzki did find such symptoms, which are anticipatable, given the reduction in the activities, including the ability to work, which Mr. Del Giglio has experienced.

[93] On the other hand, Mr. Del Giglio has been able to maintain his musical career, a vocation that he clearly thrives upon. That is a factor which I will take into account.

[94] A further factor is that Mr. Del Giglio is aging and some deterioration in his cervical spine is, in Dr. McKenzie’s words, “not uncommon.”  I accept that he would have had some increased pain at some point, but the accident accelerated the onset…

[97] Having reviewed the cases provided, I conclude a fair and reasonable award for non-pecuniary damages is $80,000.

In addition to the above this case is worth reviewing for the Court’s discussion of indivisible injuries at paragraphs 73-86 of the reasons for judgement and the arguments of defence regarding the effects of a release for a previous collision contributing to an indivisible injury.

Adding to this site’s archived BC soft tissue injury cases, reasons for judgement were released earlier this year by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry, assessing damages for chronic soft tissue injuries caused by a motor vehicle collision.

In the recent decision (Hammond v. Meeker) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2008 rear-end collision.  Fault was admitted by the rear motorist.   The Plaintiff was 7 months pregnant at the time and the impact was “substantial“.

The Plaintiff suffered from soft tissue injuries to her neck and upper back which continued to produce symptoms including headaches and pain at the time of trial.  The symptoms were expected to continue “for an indefinite period of time“.  In valuing the Plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) at $40,000 Mr. Justice Curtis provided the following reasons:

[20] I find on the evidence that the sum of $40,000 is reasonable and fair compensation to Ms. Hammond for the pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life inflicted upon her by the February 9, 2008 collision.  She has suffered a soft tissue injury to her neck and upper back, the significant symptoms of which, particularly headaches and pain and stiffness in the neck, have not resolved in the four years since the collision, and will likely continue for an indefinite period of time in the future.  While the injury and symptoms do not actually prevent any particular activity, they make many activities painful and not enjoyable to the extent that she does not do them.  This has been particularly difficult for her given her position as a home maker with two small children and for a while three with B.T. as a foster child.  On the other hand, I accept Dr. Christie’s opinion that her injury will not require surgery, nor will it make osteoarthritis more likely.

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, assessing damages for “mostly resolved” soft tissue injuries.

In last week’s case (Vela v. MacKenzie) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2009 rear-end collision.  Fault was admitted by the rear motorist.  The Plaintiff suffered various soft tissue injuries which, while not resolved, were largely recovered by the time of trial.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $27,000 Madam Justice Maisonville provided the following reasons:

[69] The Court must assess damages for injury to the plaintiff.  I find those injuries to be soft tissue injuries to the plaintiff’s neck, shoulder and trapezius area which were at their worst for the first 15 months.  At that time the pain changed to stiffness and by June 2011 was mostly resolved but was continuing sporadically. I find the headaches lasted six to eight months; the back of the hand injury had resolved after approximately three months…

[87] I find in the present case that Mr. Vela has met the burden of proof with respect to injuries he sustained to his neck, upper back and trapezius area, and those to his left hand as well as the headaches that he suffered initially. I find that, with some exceptions, the pain had largely resolved within 15 months, with continuing improvement to where the plaintiff felt he was functioning at 75 per cent to 80 per cent by June 2011. He has now only occasional flare-ups. I consequently find the injuries to be more severe than submitted by defence counsel but far less severe than submitted by the plaintiff.  I find the soft tissue injuries sustained by the plaintiff to be more akin to those sustained by a plaintiff in Hussainyar v. Miller, 2012 BCSC 405 where Allan J. awarded $27,000 in non-pecuniary damages where the injuries had largely resolved within one year but continued in part to trial, some 27 months after the accident.  (See also Robinson v. Anderson,2009 BCSC 1450 $25,000 no permanent or long-term injury or pain Hsu v. Williams, 2011 BCSC 1412 $30,000 award before deduction for failure to mitigate.)  An important principle is to be fair and reasonable to both parties (See Miller v. Lawlor, 2012 BCSC 387 para. 109 considering Andrews v. Grand v. Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; Jackson v. Lai, 2007 BCSC 1023, para.134 and Kuskis). In all the circumstances, I award $27,000 in non-pecuniary damages.