Liu v. Howes

2021 BCSC 1871 Liu v. Howes

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Liu v. Howes, 2021 BCSC 1871 Date: 20210924 Docket: M185601 Registry: New Westminster Between: Anna Gardy Liu Plaintiff And Marnie Howes and Douglas Liu Defendants Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Ball Reasons for Judgment Counsel for the Plaintiff: S.D. Ballard A. Agbozo Counsel for the Defendants: K.A. Jenkins Place and Dates of Trial: New Westminster, B.C. February 1-3 and 5, 2021 Place and Date of Judgment: New Westminster, B.C. September 24, 2021 Table of Contents Introduction. 3 The Accident. 3 History. 3 Business Activities. 3 Family Activities. 4 Post-Accident Medical Treatment. 6 Witnesses. 6 Taylor Liu. 6 Nitin Vaid. 7 Lea Zaccardi 7 Douglas Liu. 8 Medical Evidence. 10 Dr. Yasmin Garcia. 10 Dr. Steven Helper 11 Dr. Erick Calvert 13 Damages. 14 Non-Pecuniary Damages. 14 Special Damages. 16 Past Loss of Housekeeping Capacity. 16 Cost of Future Care. 17 Summary. 18 Costs. 18 Introduction [1] These are reasons for judgment in a case where the primary issue is the assessment of damages in a personal injury action. Liability has been admitted. [2] The plaintiff seeks damages for non-pecuniary loss, past and future loss of housekeeping capacity, cost of future care and special damages (the latter agreed by the parties). The Accident [3] On December 18, 2014, the plaintiff was the front seat passenger in a motor vehicle

driven by her husband, Douglas Liu. The plaintiff was wearing a properly fastened seatbelt. The Liu vehicle was being driven northbound on Highway 99 in the HOV lane when a vehicle driven by the defendant, Howes, struck the rear of the Liu vehicle at highway speed. The Liu vehicle spun 180°, crossed two traffic lanes and struck the centre median and was finally positioned facing southbound into oncoming traffic ("the Accident"). [4] Ms. Liu testified that she was jolted by the Accident, her seatbelt tightened around her body which was pushed forward and back again by the force of the collision. [5] As a result of damage caused by the Accident, repair costs to the Liu vehicle were approximately $12,000. History [6] At the time of the Accident, the plaintiff was 55 years old. She was born and raised in the lower mainland. She took part in some sporting and physical activities, including badminton and swimming. As an adult, she took ski lessons when her daughter was old enough to begin skiing. Business Activities [7] At the time of the accident, Ms. Liu had been a long-term employee of the White Spot restaurant firm in a senior administrative position as the finance manager, earning $76,000 per year. Before the Accident, she was promoted to the position of corporate controller, earning $105,000.00 per year. The firm had teambuilding activities on an annual basis which included

golfing and driving go-karts. Reference will be made to these activities later in these reasons. [8] The firm also had an annual "moving project" which involved clearing out old accounting files and related records to make room for new and current files. This activity occupied a full day and involved lifting many boxes of paper records off of shelving accessed by ladders to remove unneeded older records to storage to create space for current files. [9] Although the plaintiff missed a portion of the work day immediately following the accident, she did not take time away from work on any following day. As a result the plaintiff has made no claim for past wage loss. [10] While the plaintiff continued to work after the Accident, she found she could not participate in the firm's teambuilding activities nor the annual housekeeping project as she could no longer lift or move boxes full of files. She attended her office on the day of the annual housekeeping event, but did little more than watch the file moving others were performing without the plaintiff's physical involvement. [11] The plaintiff continued to attend work-related conferences in the period following the Accident, but she was observed by her co-worker, Ms. Zaccardi, to be experiencing some pain while attending such events, as the plaintiff would rise at every opportunity to stretch to alleviate her back pain. Family

Activities [12] The Lius had been married for 22 years at the time of the Accident. By all accounts, they enjoyed a happy and active married life. They enjoyed travelling together and had a positive intimate relationship. Post-accident, their physical relationship was diminished and opportunities for intimate contact were reduced in frequency, as was the intensity of their intimacy. [13] The couple travelled on an annual basis in Europe, the Mediterranean and particularly to Italy. The family also participated in bowling. Once their daughter was old enough, a Whistler Y2 pass was purchased, which provided unlimited skiing and skating, as well as gondola use for the family. [14] The plaintiff was also a skilled baker who provided Christmas baking for the entire finance team in the White Spot firm. Both she and her husband have extended families of some size, and the plaintiff provided Christmas baking for all members of both of the extended families. This involved continuous baking for a number of days pre-Christmas. She was also responsible for providing desserts for Christmas dinners at her parents' home. [15] Ocean cruising was an activity that the Liu family enjoyed. They cruised to Alaska on two occasions, as well as to coastal California and Mexico and into the Caribbean. The plaintiff found these trips relaxing as she enjoyed the quality service and she was not concerned

about cleaning or cooking. Mr. and Mrs. Liu also enjoyed fishing in freshwater and in the ocean on charter fishing trips. Mr. Liu described his wife as an intermediate skier and they enjoyed skiing at Sun peaks and Whistler. [16] The evidence of Ms. Liu's co-workers was that she was very social, friendly and extremely hard-working in a diligent manner before the Accident. Ms. Liu and her daughter testified that Ms. Liu was a fastidious housekeeper, carrying out chores such as vacuuming, washing floors, dusting furniture and cooking, in particular, baking, all without any complaints or difficulties before the accident. [17] After the accident, Ms. Liu did not take part in most of her social activities. Skiing was limited, notwithstanding the purchase of new ski equipment. She remained in the ski lodge rather than on the ski slopes. Post-accident she was not involved in the housekeeping at her home, annual moving day activities at her office, nor the teambuilding activities, which have been referred to above. She would attend the teambuilding activities, but only watch. [18] Pre-accident, Ms. Liu estimated that she spent between 12 and 15 hours a week working on housekeeping activities in her own home. After the accident, she was not able to continue with most of the housekeeping in her home and her husband took over most of the household chores up to approximately ten hours a

week and her daughter carried home groceries which her mother found too painful to carry. Post-Accident Medical Treatment [19] Following the accident, the plaintiff attended a walk-in clinic because she was feeling pain in her back, shoulders and arms. She received a prescription for pain relief, but the pain worsened over the first few weeks and she found preparations for a traditional family Christmas dinner to be quite painful. Back pain continued as a daily experience for the plaintiff. She found simple tasks, such as getting out of her car at a shopping mall, to be so painful that she had to solicit assistance from her daughter. [20] She had to take Advil and Robaxacet daily to cope with pain and discomfort. Witnesses Taylor Liu [21] Taylor Liu is the daughter of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and her daughter were close and engaged in physical activities, including hiking, badminton and volleyball prior to the accident. She was not aware of her mother having any physical challenges or injuries prior to the accident. They enjoyed skiing and family vacation trips prior to the accident. [22] Her observation was that her mother performed almost all household chores, including using a vacuum, washing floors, dusting furniture, cleaning bathrooms and cooking for the family. She did not hear her mother complain about any pre-accident pain nor injury. [23] Post-accident, Taylor saw

her mother struggling with pain while she attempted to perform household chores; particularly her mother would clutch at her back while speaking of pain and soreness while stooping or moving to perform household cleaning activities. Before the accident, mother and daughter had enjoyed skiing together, but post-accident skiing ceased. An attempt to replace skiing with snow shoeing was tried, but the plaintiff was unable to keep up and expressed pain and soreness in her back after the accident. Nitin Vaid [24] For about 17 years prior to the accident, Mr. Vaid has been a co-worker of the plaintiff at the White Spot Head Office. He had never observed the plaintiff complain of any physical limitation. Over the years, Mr. Vaid has watched the plaintiff participate in company team building activities, including bowling, golfing and racing go-carts. He has also participated with the plaintiff in the White Spot yearly file cleaning day called "moving day", which involved pruning files and moving hundreds of full file boxes of out-of-date documents to make room for current files. His recollection was that Ms. Liu participated fully in this activity. [25] In the period following the accident, Mr. Vaid became aware that Ms. Liu had ceased to be involved in team building activities organized by the firm headquarters or the "moving day" project both due to injury and resulting pain caused

by the accident. He recalls watching Ms. Liu taking medication to assist her in coping with accident related pain. He observed that Ms. Liu's movement became "more gingerly" and it took her longer to rise from sitting at her desk. Lea Zaccardi [26] Ms. Zaccardi was a co-worker of the plaintiff for approximately 10 years prior to the accident and has worked with her continuously since that time. Ms. Zaccardi described Ms. Liu in positive terms, as an above-average worker and a good team leader; a strong participant in teambuilding activities, including bowling, go-carting and golf, which have been described above, as well as the annual office housecleaning day, with moving, lifting and shelving many boxes filled with business records. Ms. Liu was regarded as a quiet worker who was kind to others. [27] Ms. Zaccardi did not hear the plaintiff complain of pain or soreness at any time prior to the accident. She was aware that Ms. Liu experienced thyroid surgery and subsequent treatment, but she made no comment about that at her office. [28] Ms. Zaccardi admired the "mental strength and fortitude" of the plaintiff. [29] Following the accident, Ms. Zaccardi noted that the plaintiff no longer participated in teambuilding activities, except as a spectator. Climbing stairs in the office was an activity with which the plaintiff struggled; Ms. Zaccardi heard Ms. Liu attribute that struggle

to back pain. [30] Following the accident, Ms. Zaccardi observed the plaintiff move more slowly around the office than before the accident. Ms. Liu was seen to self massage her back while wincing in pain. Tylenol and Advil containers were remedies for back pain seen constantly on Ms. Liu's desk. [31] Ms. Zaccardi and Ms. Liu discussed physical treatments that the plaintiff was receiving, including chiropractic care, physiotherapy and massage therapy and the use of heating pads. The heating pads give off a menthol aroma when used by the plaintiff in the firm's office. [32] By the time of the trial, Ms. Zaccardi had known the plaintiff for approximately 17 years and observed Ms. Liu become discouraged; at times discussing the pain she was experiencing with Ms. Zaccardi. Douglas Liu [33] Douglas Liu is the husband of the plaintiff. He is a senior financial analyst who works in the city of Vancouver. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle driven by him. She was fastened there with a three-point seat belt which was properly fastened. [34] Mr. Liu stated that he was driving northbound on Highway 99 at highway speeds when his vehicle, a 2012 Nissan Rogue, was struck from the driver's side rear bumper. The force of the collision caused the Liu vehicle to slide across two lanes of traffic, spinning on its axis and then colliding with

the highway median on the front passenger side of the vehicle where the force of the collision was sufficient to cause the vehicle to come to rest facing southbound. [35] Police and fire crew first responders attended the scene. As no symptoms were experienced by Ms. Liu at the accident scene, she was not taken to hospital, but her husband reported that symptoms developed shortly thereafter. [36] Prior to the accident, according to Mr. Liu, his wife was in good physical condition and experienced good health. Shortly post-accident, he noted his wife's movements became limited and she appeared to be experiencing significant pain. Moving about their home was difficult for her as was walking or sitting still. Ms. Liu purchased and used foam blocks, pillows and an exercise ball to reduce pain caused by the accident. [37] Prior to the accident, Ms. Liu was the chief housecleaner for the inside of the house, but in the six months following the accident, she had difficulty with household work and cleaning chores. She could not walk for long and frequently spoke of back pain. Mr. Liu became the responsible housekeeper and cleaner, including performing such chores as mopping floors and vacuuming the house. [38] Prior to the accident, he reported that he would be involved for about two hours a week in housecleaning on the interior of the house. This increased to six or eight hours per

week in the first six months following the accident and, as he took over all of the housecleaning by the end of the first year, he was performing 8 to 12 hours of housecleaning each week. He found that he could not do maintenance outside the house and do the cleaning and housekeeping chores inside the house. As a result, he hired gardeners to assist with the work outside of the house. [39] Pre-accident sporting activities enjoyed by the couple with their daughter included skiing in the interior of British Columbia and at Whistler Blackcomb for five times each year. Other activities included fishing, badminton and ping-pong, which the couple enjoyed together. [40] Post-accident Ms. Liu did not ski and her other activities were restricted. She made one or two attempts to snowshoe as an alternate skiing, but without success, as she continued to experience back pain that prevented this activity. [41] In the fall of 2017, the Liu house was sold and the townhome condominium was purchased. As this accommodation was smaller than the original home, there was less work to do to maintain the area of the townhouse. Mr. Liu reported he was then working 6 to 8 hours per week on housecleaning and household chores, including vacuuming, mopping and dusting. Mr. Liu reported that the intimate life of the couple had diminished as they "engaged far less and the duration was far less". He also

testified that Ms. Liu had become a nervous passenger in a motor vehicle, at times reacting to driving occurrences with a startle. Mr. Liu testified that the relationship of the couple remained strong, notwithstanding these challenges. [42] Mr. Liu testified that he did not have time to look after the outside and inside maintenance of the home and gardeners were hired to mow the lawn and maintain flower beds, which were described to include the installation of rocks and soil. He described lawn cutting costs at $75 per hour for two hours for a typical 4000 ft.² lawn, but no invoices or other particular calculations were produced in evidence. Medical Evidence Dr. Yasmin Garcia [43] Dr. Garcia provided an expert opinion as a family practice doctor, familiar with medical management of patients with injuries arising from motor vehicle accidents. Dr. Garcia became the doctor for the plaintiff and has been her primary physician since September 2020. Dr. Garcia had two visits with Ms. Liu, one in September and one in October 2020. [44] While the defence argued that the plaintiff's counsel requested Dr. Garcia to assume injury to the back and leg caused by the accident, it appears Dr. Garcia did not follow that request, but rather reviewed clinical records that he, himself, prepared, as well as records from the Morgan Creek Clinic and other physicians, as well as paramedical

professionals who attended at the accident scene. In other words, he did not assume the existence of injuries based on the letter from the plaintiff's lawyer, but made appropriate reviews of medical records, including radiological investigations, conducted his own examination and came to his independent opinion. He also reviewed the report of Dr. Helper dated September 28, 2016, with which he found agreement. The thoroughness of Dr. Garcia's report is of assistance to the Court. [45] The plaintiff reported, as recorded in para. 7 of p. 3, that while she received physiotherapy, massage therapy and therapy with a kinesiologist in an active rehabilitation program, all of which helped her symptoms to improve, "she continues to suffer from intermittent back pain and leg stiffness". [46] Dr. Garcia opined that Ms. Liu sustained a traumatic myofascial injury to her lower back, an injury which involves overstretching or minor tearing of muscles during the accident. It was also diagnosed as a mild lumbar scoliosis, which was not caused by the accident, but which, as a result of the accident had become "more pronounced and symptomatic" as a chronic pain syndrome; "persistent and significant symptoms which affect her function". [47] The doctor opined that Ms. Liu would experience some improvement of symptoms of back and leg pain with physiotherapy and active rehabilitation in the future,

but she will not return to her pre-accident state of health. She will continue to be intermittently symptomatic for the foreseeable future with periods of increased symptoms followed by periods of relative comfort; "a pattern characteristic of chronic pain". Dr. Steven Helper [48] Dr. Helper, following an assessment on September 19, 2016, prepared an independent medical examination report on September 28, 2016. He is a medical expert specializing in physical medicine and rehabilitation, a specialty concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, and care of physical disabilities resulting from a variety of medical conditions which can include musculoskeletal injury, neurological injury neuromuscular disease, and chronic pain. In his report, Dr. Helper diagnosed the plaintiff with low back and hip malalignment which was described as "soft tissue mediated pain [myofascial pain muscular tenderness pain] in the setting of pelvic malalignment". Dr. Helper was of the opinion that the plaintiff's low back and buttock complaints developed as a direct result of her involvement in the motor vehicle accident collision of December 18, 2014. [49] Dr. Helper goes on to opine at p. 6 that the motor vehicle collision which occurred here that was predominantly a frontal impact with a rotational component was "a medically plausible event instigating Ms. Liu's symptoms and contributing to [or causing]

pelvic rotation". [50] Dr. Helper notes that the plaintiff's presentation to the Water Mania Sports Therapy Clinic on January 13, 2015 was similar to current presentation, including references to: 1. the right sacroiliac joint was blocked; 2. weak gluteus medias; and 3. the examining therapist appears to describe right-sided posterior rotation rather than anterior rotation described in my examination. [51] At the bottom of p. 6 of his report he states "there is no indication that Ms. Liu would have developed symptoms of buttock and low back pain in December 2014 and January 2015, had she not been involved in the motor vehicle collision of December 2014". [52] As of September 2016, Dr. Helper stated that he was of the opinion that chronic soft tissue pain and dysfunction in the setting of pelvic malalignment can be difficult to treat. It would require a physical therapist to guide the rehabilitation over a course of around six months and in order to maintain clinical gains, Ms. Liu would have to dedicate herself to a lifestyle of physical fitness for the foreseeable future. The doctor recommended that Ms. Liu return to physical therapy as opposed to massage therapy. Defence counsel made note of a report that Ms. Liu had a history of neck pain relating to long hours of work. While that statement is contained in the report, it plays no role in the current opinion presented by Dr.

Helper. Dr. Erick Calvert [53] The report of Dr. Calvert which was dated October 28, 2020, was prepared at the request of defence counsel. Dr. Calvert is a specialist in orthopedic surgery with a subspecialty in foot and ankle surgery. In his report under the heading "Opinion" at p. 3, the following appears: Neck pain and tender trapezii were noted on the day of the MVA, December 18, 2014, by her family physician. Soft tissue injury to the neck was noted in the medical records. Ms. Liu's recollection of her neck being symptomatic after the accident was vague. She does not have ongoing cervical spine problems. The MVA mechanism described is reasonable in the causation of neck soft tissue injury. Based on the information available, it is probable she experienced a soft tissue injury to the cervical spine as a result of the MVA in 2014. In the future, if she has any aggravations, there is no indication that the MVA would be the causative factor. There is no indication the MVA is causative for future arthritis in the neck, nor of any neurological deterioration. There is no indication for further investigations with respect to the cervical spine. [54] Dr. Calvert opines that the right hip symptoms noted in the post-MVA time period are not related to the MVA because of delayed onset of such symptoms. However, Dr. Calvert also opines that the lumbar spine symptoms which followed the

MVA can reasonably be said to cause the soft tissue injury to the low back which this doctor suggests are probably in keeping with mechanical back pain. Dr. Calvert examined Ms. Liu on October 28, 2020, six years after the accident in question, and found her presentation was typical of a patient with a soft tissue injury and mechanical back pain. He thought it was unlikely that she would completely recover given the length of time since the accident. A course of active rehabilitation was recommended, as was an ergonomic assessment of her workspace. The ongoing disability of pain caused by prolonged sitting standing or lifting should be avoided. Ms. Liu's stated disabilities according to Dr. Calvert were in keeping with the stated symptoms and it would be hoped they might be minimized for future exercise. Damages Non-Pecuniary Damages [55] Non-pecuniary damages are intended to compensate a plaintiff for pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of amenities: Trites v. Penner, 2010 BCSC 882 [Trites] at para.

188. Damage awards should be fair and reasonable to both parties, and while the quantum of damages awarded in comparable cases are helpful, each case depends on its own set of facts: Andrews v. Grand and Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229 at 261, 83 D.L.R. 3rd (452); Trites at para. 189. [56] The parties agree non-pecuniary damages are to be assessed in accordance with the non-exhaustive list of factors articulated in Stapley v. Hejslet, 2006 BCCA 34 [Stapley] at para. 46: (a) age of the plaintiff; (b) nature of the injury; (c) severity and duration of pain; (d) disability; (e) emotional suffering; and (f) loss or impairment of life; (g) impairment of family, marital and social relationships; (h) impairment of physical and mental abilities; (i) loss of lifestyle; and (j) the plaintiff's stoicism (as a factor that should not, generally speaking, penalize the plaintiff: . . [57] The cases cited by the plaintiff include Pett v. Pett, 2009 BCCA 232 [Pett], with a non-pecuniary damages award of $85,000 or $101,000 in 2020 currency; Zen v. Readhead, 2011 BCSC 190, with an award of $85,000 or $90,000 in 2020 currency; O'Brien v. Cernovec, 2016 BCSC 1881, with an award of $85,000 or $90,000 in 2020 currency; and Faizi v. Thandi, 2019 BCSC 434, with an award of $125,000. [58] The plaintiff submitted that the appropriate range of damages is between $100,000 and $110,000. The

defendants have cited Yip v. Saran, 2014 BCSC 1283 [Yip], in the amount of $55,000 and Hatch v. Kumar, 2013 BCSC 2049 [Hatch], where the Court awarded $50,000. [59] The reasons in the Pett case deal with an accident where the defendant driver lost control of a pickup truck on a sharp logging road. The truck tumbled down an embankment. The plaintiff was then unconscious, but was taken to hospital and released that day and was able to fly home from Kelowna to his home near Langley. While Mr. Pett suffered concussion symptoms briefly, the primary complaint became low back pain which persisted from 2003, becoming chronic pain. He continued attempting to work in construction related jobs such as framing and building forms for concrete. Like the case at bar, Mr. Pett developed trouble sitting for long periods and needs to frequently move about. Also, similar to the case at bar, Mr. Pett experienced an active rehabilitation program, but while the program was predicted to maintain his then condition, the soft tissue, low back injury and pain caused, was not expected to improve. All of the medical evidence in the Pett case was consistent that he had suffered soft a soft tissue injury to his lower back which was not resolved and that he continued to work through the pain. This is consistent with the circumstances and behaviour of Ms. Liu. [60] At the close of his case Mr. Pett sought an

award for non-pecuniary damages of $120,000. The Court in that case concluded that an award in that amount was not justifiable, but reviewing the circumstances of the plaintiff, with continuing back pain and the impact on his enjoyment of life in terms of limitations on recreation and employment, non-pecuniary damages were awarded in the amount of $85,000. That amount in 2020 dollars was calculated to be $101,000. [61] I have also reviewed the other cases cited by the plaintiff herein. [62] The cases cited by the defendant include, as noted, Yip, which relies on the factors from Stapley. Yip is distinguishable on several significant bases, including that the plaintiff in the case at bar is 10 years younger than Ms. Yip and is not yet retired, which Ms. Yip did when she was 55 years old. A greater emphasis was placed on psychological and emotional injuries in Yip, unlike the physical injury, particularly the plaintiffs rotated hip, in the case at bar, which continues to cause pain and is disabling at times. The plaintiff endures pain as she continues to work in a senior executive position and she is frustrated by her limited endurance to perform housework. [63] In the case of Hatch, on August 10, 2010, the plaintiff's vehicle was stopped, waiting for a preceding vehicle to complete a left turn when it was struck from behind. The accident in the case at bar occurred at highway

speeds which involved spinning vehicles; a different form of energy affecting the vehicles. Ms. Hatch, after some time, had returned to a reduced level of physical activity, with pain. The plaintiff was seeking non-pecuniary damages in that case in the range of $55-$70,000. Mr. Kumar argued for non-pecuniary damages of $20-$30,000. The Court determined the authorities cited by Ms. Hatch were closer to the circumstances of that case and awarded damages of $50,000. [64] Upon review of all of the cited cases, the cases presented by the plaintiff fall closer to the situation of Ms. Liu in her circumstances, with continuing low back pain and the impact on her enjoyment of life in terms of limitations on recreational activities and employment. I am satisfied the amount of non-pecuniary damages to be awarded in this case is $95,000. Special Damages [65] The parties have agreed that special damages in the case at bar to be awarded in the amount of $7,181.60. I make that order by consent. Past Loss of Housekeeping Capacity [66] The position of the plaintiff in this case is that there should be an award for both past and future loss of housekeeping capacity. There is clear authority for the proposition that where a plaintiff is able to perform household tasks with difficulty or they need not be done, pecuniary damages as remuneration may be the preferred form of compensation (Kroeker v.

Jansen, [1995] B.C.J. 742, 123 D.L.R. (4th) 652; McTavish v. MacGillivray, 2000 BCCA 164 at paras. 68 and 69; and Riley v. Ritsco, 2018 BCCA 366 [Riley] at paras. 101-102). In Riley, the Court held that "it is now well-established that where a Plaintiff's injuries lead to a requirement that they pay for housekeeping services, or where the services are routinely performed for them gratuitously by family members or friends, a pecuniary award is appropriate" (at para. 101). This issue was again discussed at length in the now leading case of Kim v. Lin, 2018 BCCA 77 from para. 27, where the principle is that the loss of ability to perform housekeeping is the loss of a capacity - an asset that is compensated. Contingencies which may be applied are for limited risk factors that might make the loss of capacity more or less likely. Contingencies would not, for instance, involve the hiring of outside help with housekeeping. [67] The evidence before this court was that the plaintiff was a fastidious housekeeper and that she has lost her ability to do such house keeping. Further evidence was that the husband of the plaintiff in this case took on a major portion of the house keeping activities, but as a result, he was unable to perform his normal duties of working outside the home, performing maintenance on the exterior areas. [68] The plaintiff put forward an award based on calculations

for three separate time periods at $25 an hour. The courts have been clear that the calculation of loss of capacity is not a mathematical calculation, but rather an assessment, taking into account all of the circumstances in this case. Taking into account the submissions made and all the circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the past loss of housekeeping capacity should be assessed in the amount of $30,000 and that the future loss of housekeeping capacity should be assessed in the amount of $80,000. Cost of Future Care [69] The parties made some submissions with respect to the cost of future care. The plaintiff is seeking $5000. The defendant's analysis is that this head of damage should be fixed based on the decision in Dzumhur v. Davoody, 2015 BCSC 2316. The defence submits that the amount of $502,000 would be a fair and appropriate assessment of this head of damages, plus ongoing treatment from Diane Lee and Associates. In the circumstances of this case, I assess the cost of future care taking into account the totality of the evidence and all the submissions made by counsel, in the amount of $3,500. Summary [70] The plaintiff is awarded damages as listed above as follows: (a) Non-pecuniary Damages in the amount of $95,000; (b) Special Damages in the amount of $7,181.60, by consent; (c) Past and Future Loss of Housekeeping capacity ($30,000 and $80,000) for a total of

$110,000; and (d) Cost of Future Care in the amount of $3,500. Total: $215,681.60 Costs [71] The plaintiff is entitled to her costs pursuant to Supreme Court Civil Rules, Appendix "B", as a matter of ordinary difficulty, unless there are circumstances of which the court is not aware. The parties have leave to apply for a further order on the subject of costs within 30 days after the date of this decision. "Ball J."