ICBC Law

While Pedestrians are allowed to cross streets in a crosswalk the right is not absolute.  One limitation in section 179 of the BC Motor Vehicle Act addresses pedestrians walking in front of a moving vehicle “that is so close it is impracticable for the driver to yield the right of way“.  In these circumstances a Pedestrian could be faulted for a resulting collision even if they would otherwise have the right of way.  Reasons for judgement were released yesterday by the BC Supreme Court, Nelson Registry, considering this obligation in a personal injury lawsuit.

In yesterday’s case (Cairney v. Miller) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2009 collision.  The Plaintiff was crossing in a marked cross-walk in Nelson, BC, when he was struck by the Defendant.  As the Defendant was driving she “slowed down to look for a parking spot when she suddenly felt a bump on the left side of her car.”  The Defendant failed to see the Plaintiff and the Court ultimately found the Defendant at fault.

The Defendant went on to argue that the Plaintiff should be held partially at fault because he should have realized she was not yielding the right of way.  Mr. Justice McEwan rejected this argument and provided the following reasons:

[25] Given Mr. Thompson’s evidence, which I accept, the plaintiff was visible in the crosswalk when the defendant’s vehicle crested the hill and entered the intersection. I cannot accept that poor lighting or dark clothing had anything to do with what happened and must infer that the defendant was not paying sufficient attention in the circumstances. The plaintiff did nothing sudden or unusual to cause the collision. He was simply established in the crosswalk while the defendant’s car was approaching.

[26] Mr. Thompson’s evidence differs from that of both the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to speed. Witnesses often differ on the characterization of such matters, and both the plaintiff and the defendant agree that she was proceeding slowly, a factor in the plaintiff’s calculation that he believed the defendant was going to stop.

[27] This is difficult to reconcile with Mr. Thompson’s immediate reaction that there was going to be a collision between the plaintiff and the defendant’s vehicle. The effect of Mr. Thompson’s evidence is that, to him, the defendant’s vehicle appeared to be an immediate and obvious hazard to the plaintiff, because it was going too fast.

[28] I have carefully considered whether the plaintiff’s failure to apprehend that the defendant was not going to yield to him, engaged an obligation to avoid injury to himself that modified his right to the right of way (See Feng v. Graham (1988), 25 B.C.L.R. (2d) 116 (C.A.), cited in Dionne at para. 23 above).

[29] The evidence, taken as a whole, however, suggests that the plaintiff assumed that the defendant would stop in circumstances when it was reasonable to expect she would see him. It is often possible to say in retrospect that had a party paid more attention, he or she might have avoided the collision. In the circumstances here, I think this would impose a standard of more than usual diligence and watchfulness on the plaintiff at odds with his right to be in the crosswalk and the presumption that the plaintiff would abide by the rules of the road.

[30] Accordingly, I find the defendant fully liable for the collision.

Visual Vestibular Mismatch is a medical condition which can result in dizziness, imbalance and nausea.  The consequences of these symptoms can be severe and disabling.  Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, addressing a claim for damages arising from VVM resulting from a motor vehicle collision.

In last week’s case (Moukhine v. Collins) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2007 rear-end collision in Vancouver, BC.  Fault was admitted by the rear motorist.   The Court heard competing medical evidence as the consequences of the collision and ultimately accepted that the Plaintiff suffered from a visual vestibular mismatch as a result of the crash.

The prognosis was poor with the symptoms expected to plague the Plaintiff indefinitely.  The Plaintiff worked as a senior application developer and following the collision was never able to resume full time hours.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $90,000 Mr. Justice Watchuk provided the following reasons:

[195] I find Mr. Moukhine to be a credible witness. I accept that his descriptions of heaviness or fog or, sometimes, mist in the head describe what is to the doctors a form of dizziness. I accept that this feeling and the inability to concentrate or “think through” prevents him from working at his job as a computer programmer for more time than he describes that he is now able to work…

[225] I conclude on the evidence as a whole that the Mr. Moukhine has proven that as a result of the MVA on April 23, 2007, he has Visual Vestibular Mismatch which has not resolved.

[226] I accept Dr. Longridge’s opinion that it is unlikely that there will be further significant improvements to Mr. Moukhine’s condition or symptoms.

[227] As has been described above, this injury has had a significant effect on Mr. Moukhine.  It has resulted in continuing dizziness, primarily when he works on the computer.  He is now unable to work full-time in his professional capacity as a computer programmer. He is well-educated; he has been successful and accomplished at his job and was esteemed by his colleagues. He worked at a job he loved.

[228] Mr. Moukhine is no longer able to participate in many outdoor activities that formerly formed an important part of his life, and he is not now the cheerful, outgoing and active person that he was before the accident.

[229] The evidence of his wife, daughter and friends, Ms. Kapoustina and Mr. Khrissanov, was clear in describing the effect on him and his loss of enjoyment of life. Mr. Moukhine’s evidence was understated and demonstrated an unwillingness to complain or dwell on his limitations and inabilities. He could accurately be described as stoic.

[230] I conclude that this motor vehicle accident has had very serious consequences for Mr. Moukhine. There was a total disability for six months. The soft tissue injuries and headaches were mostly resolved by June 2010. He is not yet fully recovered and is unlikely to recover from the Visual Vestibular Mismatch.

[231] At the present time the symptoms of headaches, nausea, balance problems and dizziness recur if he works too long. Mr. Moukhine still works from home. He is able to work on a schedule that incorporates 60 to 90 minutes of work, a two hour rest, another 45 to 60 minutes of work, then another rest, followed by another 30 to 45 minutes of work for a total of 2.25 to 3.25 hours per day. He finds this restricted ability to work frustrating…

[233] Each case is to be assessed on its particular facts. Considering all of the circumstances in this case including Mr. Moukhine’s age, the effects of the injuries sustained in the accident and Dr. Longridge’s opinion that the vestibular injury is likely permanent, I assess non-pecuniary damages at $90,000.

Reasons for judgment were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, New Westminster Registry, assessing damages for a long-standing sacroiliac joint injury.

In last week’s case (Madsen v. Bekker) the Plaintiff was injured in a 2006 collision.  He suffered various injuries the most serious of which was a strain to his sacroiliac joint.  His symptoms largely recovered although mildly continued through trial and were expected to linger into the future.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $40,000 Mr. Justice Truscott provided the following reasons for judgement:

154] I accept the opinion of Dr. McGraw that the plaintiff sustained a strain of his left sacroiliac joint and I reject the opinion of Dr. Watt that it was rather a soft tissue injury to his left iliopsoas muscle and his left piriformis muscle.

[155] Dr. Watt may not have diagnosed a sacroiliac joint strain but he was not prepared to disagree with Dr. McGraw’s diagnosis of that.

[156] Dr. McGraw proved his diagnosis through the image-guided diagnostic block of the joint on March 3, 2009 and October 22, 2009.

[157] In his report of July 24, 2008 Dr. McGraw diagnosed grade 1 soft tissue injury to the lower back area and Dr. Watt in his report of February 9, 2011 also described complaints of non-radiating low back pain at the time of his assessment of January 17, 2011. To that extent the diagnosis of both doctors is similar…

[159] I am prepared to accept some present minor low back injury related to a strain of the left sacroiliac joint causing mild pain at times of prolonged lifting, bending or crouching but I also do not consider that this pain has been disabling to any of the plaintiff’s activities at all…

[163] Although Dr. McGraw says that consideration could be given to a surgical fusion or arthrodesis of the left sacroiliac joint if the joint pain is not managed in the long-term by conservative treatments such as injections, or doing nothing and becoming fit, he does not recommend surgical intervention.

[164] With this opinion of Dr. McGraw that I accept I do not consider the chance of surgical intervention to be at any level sufficient for an award of compensation.

[165] I am satisfied from all the evidence that the plaintiff’s effort to become more fit through his own exercise routines is working sufficiently to resolve the strain in his left sacroiliac joint and any related low back soft tissue injury.

[166] I decline to apply any adverse inference against the plaintiff for failing to call Dr. Feldman, a physiatrist who attended on him. The plaintiff says he was simply told, as Dr. Parkin had told him, to rest. Even if I were to apply any adverse inference I would not know what that inference would be other than the opinion would be no different than all the evidence I have heard.

[167] I am prepared to accept that the plaintiff’s complaints have continued for over four years, but at a mild level, and I consider an appropriate award of non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life should be in the amount of $40,000.

For other recent BC Caselaw dealing with non-pecuniary damages for sacroiliac joint injuries you can click here to access my archived posts.

Interesting reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Prince George Registry, finding that a Plaintiff’s lawyer could use the Legal Profession Act to resolve a dispute for failure of the Defendant’s insurer to reimburse the cost of providing clinical records in the course of litigation.

In today’s case (Garth A. Wright Law Corporation v. ICBC) the Lawyer represented a Plaintiff in a personal injury action.  In the course of the claim ICBC requested various records from the lawyer and indicated that “We confirm that once we are in receipt of the records, our office will forward a cheque reimbursing your firm for costs incurred in obtaining same“.

The lawyer provided the records to ICBC and issued an account for their production.  ICBC did not pay the account.  The lawyer took the unusual turn to force payment of the Account using the mechanisms available under the Legal Profession Act.

ICBC argued that the Legal Profession Act could not be used as ICBC was not the Plaintiff’s lawyer’s client.  Master Baker disagreed and found that the Court did have jurisdiction to resolve this dispute.  In dismissing ICBC’s challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction Master Baker provided the following reasons:

[9] Mr. Wright submits a narrow point, that this court has jurisdiction under ss. 69(1) and 70(3)of the LPA to consider the account.  Those sections read:

69  (1) A lawyer must deliver a bill to the person charged.

and

70 (3) Subject to subsection (11), a lawyer may obtain an appointment to have a bill reviewed 30 days or more after the bill was delivered under section 69.

He argues that a party need only conform to the very narrow definition of “person charged” to be subject to the provisions and process of the LPA, and need not be the solicitor’s client per se.  He likens the whole issue to a simple contract; Ms. Reynolds requested/offered, he accepted, and thereby a contract, of sorts, arose.  He does not specifically claim a contractual right in this transaction but simply uses the analogy and submits that “the person charged” need not be a client, but need only be a party that has agreed to pay for whatever service has been requested. ..

[17] First, there is no question that a conventional solicitor/client relationship need not be established to bring a matter within ss. 69(1) and 70(3)…

[21] Even so, and notwithstanding Mr. Wright’s argument that he does not have to prove that complying with Ms. Reynolds’ request was giving a legal service, I think it was.  There is absolutely no doubt that the process of obtaining and forwarding medical records includes purely clerical acts, but it would be a mistake to ignore other aspects that include legal expertise and judgment.  Ms. Aviss’ evidence is that Mr. Wright routinely reviews the records on receipt and prior to forwarding copies.  It is the responsibility of all litigation counsel to review documents for relevance, privilege, and, occasionally, privacy.  Medical records, in particular, routinely cause disputes as to the proper form of production; should they be produced unedited (in British Columbia the so-called Jones format), or should they be redacted (the Halliday format)?  The only way for that to proceed is for counsel to exercise legal skills and judgment.  That’s a legal service.

[22] I do not consider the court constrained in this proceeding by the definitions contained in the Social Service Tax Act.  The definitions and exclusions in that Act are for specific application of the purpose of that Act; i.e. the taxation of various goods and services.  They cannot have such a broad application that they trench on or restrict another statute.

[23] There is no doubt that there was an agreement between ICBC and Mr. Wright but, as in Walker and Wilson, I have the same question to answer as did Master Horn.  What did the parties agree to?  I have concluded that the parties agreed that ICBC would pay Mr. Wright’s reasonable costs of the process, and that the costs were not restricted either solely to indemnifying the doctor’s charges for the copies, nor to eventual party and party tariff costs/disbursements.  As with Walker and Wilson, if there was misunderstanding it was on Ms. Reynolds’ part.  I conclude that all elements in the context of this transaction lead to the conclusion that what was reasonably intended was reimbursement of both payment to the medical office and a photocopying charge by Mr. Wright’s office…

[26] Mr. Wright’s account to ICBC for obtaining, photocopying, and forwarding the records of a non-party is a charge properly brought by appointment under the LPA.

One of the goals of the New Rules of Court was to make litigation “just, speedy and inexpensive” and to simplify the process.  One area where the Rules have fallen short of this goal is the area of pre-trial document disclosure obligations.  Under the former Rules parties were bound by one consistent (but arguably over-broad) test.  Now parties are met with a host of obligations which were well summarized in reasons for judgement released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Victoria Registry.

In this week’s case (Edwards v. Ganzer) the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision.  A dispute arose with respect the Plaintiff’s disclosure obligations.  In resolving the dispute Master Bouck provided the following reasons summarizing the legal disclosure obligations (and dispute process) under Rule 7-1:

[39] Biehl v. Strang is the seminal decision of Punnett J. addressing (mostly) the primary obligation of document disclosure under Rule 7-1(1) (a). The remaining decisions touch upon, if not directly address, the document disclosure obligations under both Rule 7-1(1)(a) and Rule 7-1(14) of the SCCR.

[40] In addition, Master Baker has recently discussed the application of Rule 7-1 in Burgess v. Buell Distribution Corp., 2011 BCSC 1740.

[41] I understand the principles outlined in these various decisions, together with the applicable Rules, to be as follows:

a. The initial production obligation under Rule 7-1 (1) (a) (i) is limited to what is required to prove or disprove a material fact: Biehl v. Strang at para. 14;

b.  Rule 7-1(10) allows the opposing party to issue a written demand requiring the listing party to amend the original list and produce documents that should have been disclosed under Rule 7-1(1)(a)(i);

c.  In addition, Rule 7-1(11) allows the opposing party to issue a written demand requiring the listing party to amend the list and produce documents which ought to be disclosed under a test “close to” that set out in Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Company (1882), 11 Q.B.D. 55 at 63, (the “Guano test”): Global Pacific at para. 9;

d.  The distinction between the two types of disclosure provided for under Rule 7-1 is stated in Global Pacific as follows:

The question is whether a document can properly be said to contain information which may enable the party requiring the document either to advance his own case or damage the case of his adversary, if it is a document which may fairly lead him to a train of inquiry, or if it may have either of those two consequences. Therefore, it is acknowledged that the initial disclosure under Rule 7-1(1) relates to a materiality requirement, but that a party can apply to the court, as the defendant did here, for broader disclosure pursuant to Rule 7-1(14).

(my emphasis.)

Para. 9

e.  Both the demand by the requesting party and the response of the opposing party should be set out in writing addressing the terms and criteria used in Rule 7-1. Whether the demand and response provide sufficient particularity is a matter of the court’s discretion;

f.  If an application is brought under Rule 7-1(13) for the listing or production of  documents, the court may either order compliance with the demand, excuse full compliance, or order partial compliance: Rule 7-1(14);

g.  The objectives of the SCCR, including proportionality, may be taken into account by the court when exercising its discretion under Rule 7-1(14). The proportionality rule can be applied to either expand or restrict the required production of documents: Global Pacific citing Whitcombe v. Avec Insurance Managers Inc., 2011 BCSC 204.

[42] Interestingly, a party may be excused from compliance with Rule 7-1(1) generally, but the court is not given the specific power to order compliance with a demand made for the listing and production of the so-called “materiality” documents. Rule 7-1(14) only specifically allows for an order requiring compliance with a broader disclosure demand under Rule 7-1(11): Global Pacific; Burgess v. Buell Distribution Corp. Whether this distinction is an oversight or intentional is difficult to say. It might well be the former, given that Rule 7-1(13) contemplates a compliance order by the court if a demand for the “material” documents is issued. The distinction is more fully canvassed in Burgess v. Buell Distribution Corp. at para. 15.

As previously discussed, if a person fails to take reasonable steps to mitigate their damages following a personal injury the compensation they are entitled to is reduced accordingly.

There are some clear examples where a person will not be penalized for failing to mitigate their damages such as when they are financially unable to follow their doctor’s advice.  But what about pre-existing religious views?  Can a person be penalized by a damage reduction for failing to follow medical advice where their refusal to do so was based on a religious belief?  Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, discussing this interesting topic.

In this week’s case (Abdalle v. British Columbia (Public Safety and Solicitor General)) the Plaintiff suffered a head injury when he was struck at an intersection by an RCMP cruiser.  Fault for the crash was admitted.

In the course of recovery the Plaintiff failed to follow various suggestions made by his medical practitioners.  The Plaintiff argued his damages should not be reduced as this failure was based on religious beliefs.  Madam Justice Ross did not address the issue head on as she was not satisfied that the Plaintiff’s decisions were based on “sincerely held religious or spiritual objection“.  Despite this finding the Court made the following observation about this little tested area of law:

[71] In addition, counsel submits that Mr. Abdalle has spiritual and religious objections to drug use. Counsel submits that adherence to a sincerely held religious belief should not be considered a failure to mitigate damages. In counsel’s submission this should be an application of the principle of tort law that the tortfeasor takes the victim as he finds him.

[72] The medical evidence establishes that the recommended treatments would likely have assisted Mr. Abdalle, that there were no contraindications in his case and that the risks were minimal. Accordingly, unless Mr. Abdalle’s spiritual objections provide a reason to refuse treatment, I conclude that Mr. Abdalle’s refusal to follow the recommendations of his physicians was unreasonable…

[75] It appears that the particular question of whether pre-existing religious beliefs would constitute a reasonable basis for a refusal of medical treatment has not been addressed in this jurisdiction. Jamie Cassels and Elizabeth Adjin-Tettey wrote in Remedies: The Law of Damages, at pp. 292 and 393 that “there is little authority on this issue”, and cite two American decisions as guidance. Neither of these cases have been cited in Canadian jurisprudence. Moreover, from Janiak it is clear that the American position on this issue takes subjective attributes into consideration to a greater degree than in Canada (Janiak, p. 160). Cassels and Adjin-Tettey opine at p. 392 that:

According to the Janiak test, where a medical treatment is otherwise obviously required, religious or ethical objections would not provide an excuse from mitigating unless those objections rendered the plaintiff incapable of choice or could be assimilated to ‘pathological’ conditions.

[76] Ken Cooper-Stephenson also explored this topic in Personal Injury Damages in Canada and expressed a different view. He stated at p. 876 that:

[l]f a pre-existing religious belief or cultural practice inhibits or prevents the plaintiff’s capacity to choose a certain form of treatment…then it is almost certain that the plaintiff will not be adjudged unreasonable in the refusal… Defendants take their plaintiffs as they find them with respect to their religion, their culture, and their socio-economic setting.

He does not, however, provide any Canadian authority in support of this proposition.

[77] Professor Cooper-Stephenson also argues that there is a move towards subjectivism, with one approach including religious belief and cultural practice within the notion of “capacity” fromJaniak. He says, at p. 879, that as for religious belief and cultural practice:

…their recognition as fundamental constitutionally-protected interests in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms almost certainly requires that they be respected in post-action choices for the purposes of the duty to mitigate.

[78] There are two questions to be addressed in relation to this issue. The first is whether, to what extent, and under what circumstances a religious or cultural belief will be taken into consideration in addressing the plaintiff’s duty to mitigate. As noted above, it appears that the answer to this question may not be settled in Canadian jurisprudence. The second question is whether in the particular case, the plaintiff’s failure to follow a recommended course of treatment is the result of adherence of a religious or cultural belief or practice.

[79] In my view, this is not the case to make a determination with respect to the first question because I have concluded that the factual foundation is simply not made out for the Court to conclude that the reason for the refusal of treatment was a sincerely held religious or spiritual objection on the part of Mr. Abdalle…

[81] In the result, I am satisfied that Mr. Abdalle’s refusal to take the Nortriptyline prescribed by Dr. Dhawan and his failure to follow the recommendation to take facet block injections was not the product of a religious or spiritual objection. In addition, I find Mr. Abdalle’s failure to continue with swimming, to become more active, to attend a further course of physiotherapy, to take the Nortriptyline as prescribed and the facet block injections as recommended was unreasonable in all the circumstances and in breach of his duty to mitigate.

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Vernon Registry, assessing damages arising from injuries sustained a motor vehicle collision.

In last week’s case (Smith v. Williams) the Plaintiff was a young veterinarian.  She was involved in a 2009 collision.  The Defendant crossed the centre-line and caused a head-on collision.  The Plaintiff sustained chronic soft tissue injuries and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  The Plaintiff’s symptoms were on-going at the time of trial.  In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $75,000 Mr. Justice Betton provided the following reasons:

[33] The plaintiff indicated that the accident has left her with a feeling of vulnerability. She is very anxious in a motor vehicle, especially on highways, envisioning accidents unfolding. There are occasional panic attacks. She gets a tingling and pain down her right arm that is aggravated by repetitive motion and particular movements or positions. One of these, I note, was holding her child while breastfeeding. Others relate to her work as a vet.

[34] She spoke of how the physical and psychological injuries have adversely affected her enjoyment of her wedding and her regret for how she reacted to the stresses associated with the wedding toward her husband. For her part, the plaintiff indicates that she simply battles through her restrictions. She says that the more physically demanding her day, the greater the consequences in symptoms…

[43] This plaintiff is a young professional, early in her career. She has historically been a high-achiever, endowed with intelligence, motivation and physical ability. The motor vehicle collision came as she was planning her wedding and the purchase of a business. Her wedding, as described by her, was not the enjoyable experience that she, as a young woman, had dreamed of.

[44] The purchase of the business completed, and she has been able to live up to the work demands of that practice, facilitated in part by the fact that it is less demanding than work she did prior to acquiring the practice. In addition, her absence for maternity leave coincided with her rehabilitation. She has actively engaged in rehabilitation during all of the significant developments in her life, including being a new mother. The Post Traumatic Stress Disorder symptoms linger and also influence the enjoyment of an activity which is part of everyday life, that is, driving…

[53] Taking what one can from those authorities and applying the general principles, as referenced in Stapley, it is my conclusion that an appropriate award for general damages is $75,000.

One of the foundations of our tort-system is accountability.  Those harmed at the hands of others careless or criminal actions deserve compensation.  Those who act carelessly and cause harm ought to be held accountable by providing the compensation.  This goes to our basic understandings of fairness.

When governments decide to strip people of their right to sue and instead create no-fault systems of compensation accountability is removed from the picture.  This can lead to absurd results as demonstrated in a story published last week by the Globe and Mail.

Accountability matters.  At its most basic level no-fault insurance takes away compensation rights of victims and redistributes these to those that cause harm.  Examples such as the one pointed out by the Globe and Mail should act as a reminder to Government that removing accountability from the Civil Justice System is a fundamentally flawed policy.

The above image was taken from the BC Government Website where they recently launched a “budget calculator” permitting the public to play around with various tax revenues and expenditures.  The calculator is far from complete, however, leaving many expenses out of bounds.  One expense which is absent is the CMPA fee subsidy.

I recently wrote how BC taxpayers subsidize the defence of doctors in medical malpractice lawsuits.  This issue has also received media scrutiny by legal reporter and former lawyer Alan Shanoff.  I questioned the propriety of this given the long term under-funding of legal aid and BC’s Justice System.

It seems that Ontario taxpayers will be receiving a break from this subsidy in 2012.  A longstanding reader of my blog who does not care to be named notes that taxpayers in Ontario will not be on the hook for CMPA fees for 2012.

The CMPA reports that “The payment of medical liability protection costs in Ontario is guided by two agreements. Firstly and as is the case in other provinces, Ontario physicians benefit from a program that reimburses them for a portion of their CMPA membership fees…For members, the substantial reduction in total CMPA fees translates into individual fees for 2012 that are at, or below, 1986 levels. As the reimbursement program is based on a 1986 threshold, the program will be suspended for 2012 while members “out-of-pocket” costs will remain consistent with previous years. ”

As things stand BC taxpayers will not get the same benefit with the public continuing to subsidize CMPA membership fees despite the CMPA “holding $572 million in unrestricted net assets”. I again ask who is a better beneficiary of the $50 plus million dollars the BC Government has used to subsidize liability insurance dues, the CMPA with half a billion dollars in unrestricted net assets, or BC’s poorest who require legal aid to gain access to justice?

Reasons for judgement were released last week by the BC Supreme Court, Nanaimo Registry, assessing damages for injuries sustained from two motor vehicle collisions.

In last week’s case (Parker v. Lemmon) the Plaintiff was injured in two separate crashes, the first occurred in late 2008 the second the following month.  Fault was admitted by the Defendants for both collisions.  The crashes caused an overlapping indivisible injury and damages were assessed globally.

The Plaintiff’s injuries included a Grade 2 Whiplash Associated Disorder in her upper and lower back long with her neck muscles and ligaments.  This injury persisted and caused the Plaintiff a partial disability in her job as a care-aid with restrictions associated with “repetitive reaching and pulling and pushing…as well as the repetitive bending with regards to her lower back“.

In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $45,000 Mr. Justice Savage provided the following reasons:

[27] In considering non-pecuniary damages in this case I am also cognizant of the Supreme Court of Canada’s summary of the purpose of non-pecuniary damages as set out in Lindal v. Lindal, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 629 at p. 637:

Thus the amount of an award for non-pecuniary damage should not depend alone upon the seriousness of the injury but upon its ability to ameliorate the condition of the victim considering his or her particular situation. It therefore will not follow that in considering what part of the maximum should be awarded the gravity of the injury alone will be determinative. An appreciation of the individual’s loss is the key and the “need for solace will not necessarily correlate with the seriousness of the injury” (Cooper-Stephenson and Saunders, Personal Injury Damages in Canada(1981), at p. 373). In dealing with an award of this nature it will be impossible to develop a “tariff”. An award will vary in each case “to meet the specific circumstances of the individual case” (Thornton at p. 284 of S.C.R.).

[28] Such awards will vary in each case to meet specific circumstances. A specific circumstance here is the plaintiff’s overall health condition. That said, I accept that her injuries have significantly impacted her enjoyment of life, including her work, family and social life…

[36] In Fata, the injuries were found to be such that they would not have prevented a return to full-time employment, although with discomfort. Some of the sequelae were resolved at the time of trial, although there was some lingering shoulder pain that would likely not resolve. The Court awarded $45,000 non-pecuniary damages. The factual circumstances are not in all respects similar to the case at bar, but in my view the award in Fata most appropriately approximates what is appropriate here. I note in that case the Court found that the plaintiff could have returned to work but chose not to. In this case the plaintiff did return to her former employment, which her specialist physician opined she could, but she ultimately chose to discontinue that employment and is considering retraining.

[37] In my opinion the appropriate award for non-pecuniary damages in this case is $45,000.