As I’ve previously written, video surveillance in and of itself does not harm a persons ICBC claim, being caught in a lie does. Reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, demonstrating this fact.
In today’s case (Fata v. Heinonen) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2006 BC collision. Fault was admitted. The Plaintiff suffered several injuries including “an obvious impingement syndrome at the shoulder“. The Defendant disputed the severity of the Plaintiff’s injuries at trial. Instead of relying on independent medical evidence, the Defendant sought to harm the Plaintiff’s case by relying on video surveillance which was taken the year following the collision.
The surveillance showed the Plaintiff doing various activities such as grocery shopping and unloading and loading objects into his vehicle. This video surveillance did not harm the Plaintiff’s claim. Why? Because it did not show anything that contradicted the Plaintiff’s evidence at trial. In explaining why the surveillance did not harm the Plaintiff’s claim Madam Justice Griffin held as follows:
 The videotape surveillance was not inconsistent with Mr. Fata’s evidence or that of his physicians. Mr. Fata’s evidence was that his physicians and physiotherapist had recommended that he continue to use his left arm and shoulder, and that he attempts to do so. No one has suggested that he has no use of his left arm and shoulder. Neither Mr. Fata nor the physicians, who gave expert opinions on his behalf, suggested any marked limitation in Mr. Fata’s range of motion. His primary complaint is that he has pain when he uses his left arm and shoulder. The videotape did not disprove this evidence, nor did it seriously cast doubt on it. A videotape cannot capture all pain but may illustrate signs of severe pain, for example, if the person being watched grimaces on doing certain activities. Mr. Fata was not displaying obvious signs of pain. The videotape perhaps illustrates that whatever pain Mr. Fata might have with ordinary day-to-day activities is manageable.
 I have concluded from reviewing the videotape evidence carefully and considering Mr. Fata’s explanations of it, as well as from my review of the medical evidence and Mr. Fata’s evidence of his ongoing symptoms, that Mr. Fata does continue to suffer ongoing symptoms in his left arm and shoulder that were caused by the motor vehicle accident of November 13, 2006. Given the passage of time, it is likely these symptoms will continue indefinitely. These symptoms are not severe, as Mr. Fata still has use of his left arm and can do most activities. However, the symptoms are such that Mr. Fata does suffer pain with the use of his left arm and particularly with excessive use or lifting his arm over his shoulder. The pain restricts him from some of these types of activities he might otherwise do.
The Court went on to award the Plaintiff $45,000 in non-pecuniary damages for his soft tissue injuries and shoulder impingement.
This case is also worth also worth reviewing for the Court’s explanation of the “Golden Years” doctrine.
- The “Golden Years Doctrine” Explained
In personal injury claims BC Courts recognize that no two cases are exactly alike and the assessment of non-pecuniary damages (money for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life) depends on the unique facts of any given case.
One principle that is sometimes used in assessing non-pecuniary damages is the “Golden Years” doctrine. This principle recognizes the fact that the retirement years are particularly special and an injury affecting a person in their golden years may warrant a greater award for non-pecuniary damages. Madam Justice Griffin succinctly summarized this principle as follows:
 The retirement years are special years for they are at a time in a person’s life when he realizes his own mortality. When someone who has always been physically active loses his physical function in these years, the enjoyment of retirement can be severely diminished, with less opportunity to replace these activities with other interests in life. Further, what may be a small loss of function to a younger person who is active in many other ways may be a larger loss to an older person whose activities are already constrained by age. The impact an injury can have on someone who is elderly was recognized in Giles v. Canada (Attorney General),  B.C.J. No. 3212 (S.C.), rev’d on other grounds (1996), 21 B.C.L.R. (3d) 190 (C.A.).
 In short, it is Mr. Fata’s loss of enjoyment of life in recreation, home chores, and work that should be compensated for in an award for non-pecuniary damages…
 On the facts of this case, where Mr. Fata has suffered a loss of some enjoyment of life in every aspect of his life, I conclude that an appropriate award for non-pecuniary damages is $45,000.