IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Date: 20120817

Docket: M103125

Registry:
Vancouver

Between:

John Lloyd Morgan

Plaintiff

And

Richard Craig
Scott

Defendant

Before:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Voith

Reasons for Judgment

[1]          
The plaintiff, Mr. Morgan, seeks damages arising from a motor
vehicle accident that occurred on August 29, 2009 (“the Accident”). The trial
occupied two and one-half days. The plaintiff called three witnesses. Liability
was admitted, though the defendant, Mr. Scott, gave brief evidence describing
the circumstances of the Accident.

Overview

[2]          
Mr. Morgan had, for many years prior to the Accident, faced various
physical challenges. He accepts that he suffered from some degree of chronic
pain in his neck, low back, and elsewhere as a result of two motor vehicle
accidents in 1990. It is also common ground that Mr. Morgan has suffered
from a chronic obstructive lung disorder and emphysema since at least 1992, and
that he has been on a disability pension as a result of that condition since
1995. As well, he had struggled periodically with depression and anxiety before
the Accident, and had been a poor sleeper for many years.

[3]          
The plaintiff argues that the Accident has had a devastating impact on his
already difficult circumstances. The defendant, who accepts that the Accident
exacerbated Mr. Morgan’s physical difficulties and challenges, argues,
however, that in real terms, his day-to-day existence was largely unchanged.

Background

[4]          
Mr. Morgan is now 49 years old. He has five siblings. He was raised
by his mother until he was 13 years old. He and one of his sisters then left
home because his mother struggled with severe depression. He began to work at
that time, though he stayed in school until he was 15 years old. Over the next
several years, he held various jobs painting and refinishing cars and as a
heavy duty mechanic. At the age of 21 he completed his apprenticeship as an
electrician. He met his wife in the early 1980s. They began to live together
shortly thereafter, and were married in 1986. They have one daughter who is now
26 years old.

[5]          
In 1990, Mr. Morgan was in two separate motor vehicle accidents. He
said that those accidents caused him pain in his neck, back, ankles, wrists,
and other joints. He said he worked through this pain, though he was on light
duty for a year. Mr. Morgan accepted that he suffered from chronic low
back, neck, and joint pain thereafter.

[6]          
In 1992, Mr. Morgan was diagnosed with his present lung condition.
That condition required him to completely stop working in 1995. He has received
a disability pension since that time. At present, the pension provides him with
approximately $920 per month.

[7]          
On two occasions, once in 1997 and again in 2001, Mr. Morgan was
hospitalized for some weeks on account of his lung condition. On each occasion
he required surgery. On each occasion he also required access to or was on
oxygen for approximately a year.

[8]          
In 2002, Mr. Morgan undertook a respiratory rehabilitation program.
He learned how to breathe when exercising. He bought weights and a treadmill.
He used the weights for his chest, shoulders, and legs. He did exercises for
his stomach muscles. He did stretching exercises. He said he could walk for up
to an hour at a pace of three to four miles per hour, depending on how well he
was breathing. He regularly exercised six days a week.

[9]          
Mr. Morgan’s lung condition is sufficiently severe that he has in
the past dealt with the agencies and with physicians who are involved in lung
transplants. His condition at the time of those consultations was judged not to
require that he be put on the list for a lung transplant. He was, however, told
that it was important that he exercise and remain strong. He took that advice
to heart and worked diligently to maintain his fitness level.

[10]       
Mr. Morgan accepted that he has, in the past, had periods of
depression. Thus, for example, when he was first told he would no longer be
able to work, he said that he was depressed but that he grew out of it. In the
year or two prior to the Accident he learned that his brother, to whom he is
close, was addicted to drugs. Mr. Morgan conceded that this caused him
some “emotional problems”. At some point prior to the Accident, his wife also
required surgery, which caused him additional anxiety.

[11]       
Mr. Morgan’s lung condition naturally limited his physical
activities. Nevertheless, he socialized with friends and family regularly. He
enjoyed playing poker and had, in the two to three years prior to the Accident,
organized monthly tournaments for friends and family. Up to 47 people attended
these tournaments. Mr. Morgan also enjoyed spending time on his computer.

[12]       
It is significant that in the period prior to the Accident, Mr. Morgan
had various injuries or physical difficulties that caused him to suspend his
weightlifting, though he continued with his stomach exercises, stretching, and
walking. First, he had a hamstring injury which he said resolved after a period
of physiotherapy. The precise timing of this injury was unclear. Second, he had
some pain in his neck. This pain, in combination with his other chronic low
back, neck, and joint pain, caused his family physician to refer him to Dr. Caillier,
a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[13]       
Dr. Caillier first saw Mr. Morgan on August 22, 2009, just a
week before the Accident. Dr. Caillier prepared a medical-legal report
dated February 25, 2011 that was filed at trial. Her qualifications to give
expert evidence within her area of expertise were unchallenged. The defendant
did not call any competing expert evidence.

[14]       
Dr. Caillier said, as did Mr. Morgan, that his pressing
concern when they first met was a particular form of neck pain. She also said, and
her notes reflect, that he also complained of constant neck and low back pain.
He had headaches. After this first visit, Dr. Caillier opined that Mr. Morgan
had chronic myofascial and mechanical pain in his low back. She further opined
that his neck pain was predominantly myofascial in nature. She made several
recommendations which were directed to increasing his level of exercise and
recommended trialing a very low dose of nortriptyline at night with the object
of helping with his pain and difficulty sleeping. She further recommended, and Mr. Morgan
agreed, to certain “trigger point injections” for the particular form of neck
pain that Mr. Morgan was then struggling with.

[15]       
On August 29, 2009, Mr. Morgan attended at Dr. Caillier’s
office for the trigger point injections they had discussed. Dr. Caillier’s
report indicates that there was a decrease in Mr. Morgan’s neck pain. Mr. Morgan
also said that the particular form of neck pain he had been struggling with
resolved over the next few months.

The Accident

[16]       
The Accident occurred within a half hour of Mr. Morgan leaving Dr. Caillier’s
office. The circumstances of the Accident are, for the most part, not in
dispute. Mrs. Morgan, who had taken her husband to Dr. Caillier’s
office, was driving their vehicle. She was going northbound on 12th Avenue and had
stopped for a light at Kingsway Street. The defendant, Mr. Scott, stopped
his vehicle behind them. For some reason, Mr. Scott believed the light had
turned green, began to move forward, and bumped into the back of the Morgan’s
vehicle. He then backed up. The parties pulled over and exchanged their
respective particulars. Mr. and Mrs. Morgan said that Mr. Scott’s
car had slid under the back of their vehicle. Mr. Scott denied this. I do
not consider that this conflict in the evidence is of any moment.

Mr. Morgan’s Credibility

[17]       
No issue was taken with Mr. Morgan’s credibility. He is a
straightforward gentleman who described his circumstances and difficulties in
an understated and forthright manner. He answered the questions he was asked on
cross-examination openly and directly. His evidence is overwhelmingly
consistent with the evidence given by his wife and by Dr. Caillier. I
consider that such minor discrepancies in his evidence as arose are inevitable
and observe that they generally had the effect of diminishing the severity of
his post-Accident circumstances. Mr. Morgan has also seen many doctors
over many years for many reasons. I attach no significance to the fact that he
was at times unable to recall what he said to whom and at what specific point
in time. He accepted that the record of the descriptions he gave various health
professionals at different points in time were likely accurate. I also observe
that Dr. Caillier, who treated Mr. Morgan for several years and who
saw him on multiple occasions, considered that the descriptions he gave of his
difficulties were measured and consistent with her observations.

Mr. Morgan’s Post-Accident Circumstances

[18]       
The assessment of Mr. Morgan’s post-Accident condition and the
adverse changes which were caused by the Accident requires an understanding of his
limitations before the Accident.

[19]       
As I have said, it is not contested that Mr. Morgan suffered
chronic pain in his neck, low back, and joints as result of two motor vehicle
accidents in 1990. It is important, however, to place that fact in context and
to assess more carefully what restrictions that pain imposed on his work and
lifestyle.

[20]       
Mr. Morgan continued with his employment for five years after the two
motor vehicle accidents. When he was forced to go on disability, it was because
of his lung condition and not because of his chronic pain symptoms. Similarly,
the various other impediments which, pre-Accident, prevented him from living a
fuller life were also largely related to his lung condition. I am speaking here
of his inability to walk any great distance, his need to keep out of cold or moist
environments, and his inability to do certain work in the house because such
work tired him or required the use of solvents or cleaning agents which
interfered with his breathing. I recognize and accept that Mr. Morgan’s
pre-existing lung condition remains relevant when assessing the loss he has
suffered as a result of the Accident. For present purposes, however, I am simply
placing his pre-existing chronic pain condition and the consequences of that
condition into context.

[21]       
The examples Mr. Morgan gave of being depressed in the past were
also linked to specific events or issues that caused him distress. There was no
evidence that such episodes were attributable to his chronic pain symptoms. Dr. Caillier
also observed that his anxiety, at least in part, was related to psycho social
stressors. Dr. Caillier’s report and her evidence were not clear on what
gave rise to his long-standing difficulties with headaches and sleep
disruption.

[22]       
Still further, the word “chronic” is capable of being misunderstood. The
Concise Oxford English Dictionary, revised 11th ed., confirms that the
word can mean either “persisting for a long time” or “constantly recurring”. In
the case of Mr. Morgan, both he and Dr. Caillier confirmed that Mr. Morgan
had “flareups” of his chronic pain symptoms, though, as in the case of the time
period which preceded the Accident, such flareups could last for more extended
periods of time.

[23]       
The Accident brought about a significant change in Mr. Morgan’s
physical and emotional circumstances. This change had two features. First, the
severity of his various difficulties was much increased. Second, these various
difficulties changed from being episodic or recurring in nature to unabating or
constant conditions.

[24]       
I have said that, prior to the Accident, Mr. Morgan had stopped
weightlifting. He told Dr. Caillier during his August 22, 2009 visit, and
she confirmed, that he was keen to get back to that exercise. Though it is
possible that his then condition, absent the Accident, would not have improved,
I consider this unlikely. First, the new, and in Mr. Morgan’s mind
dominant, problem that brought him to Dr. Caillier was a particular form
of neck pain that did resolve after he received his trigger point injections.
Second, Dr. Caillier had recommended an increase in his activity level.
Third, there was no evidence that the “flareup” of his chronic pain symptoms in
the months prior to the Accident was different in nature from the difficulties
he had periodically had since he was first injured almost two decades earlier.
There was thus no evidence or suggestion that Mr. Morgan’s chronic pain condition
prior to the Accident reflected some new baseline or static state.

[25]       
In any event, his physical condition became worse almost immediately
after the Accident. Dr. Caillier reported that the muscle spasming in his
neck and back, which had previously been intermittent, became more constant.
His headaches worsened. His pain in various areas increased. In addition, Mr. Morgan’s
lumbar and cervical spine range of motion decreased.

[26]       
Over the next two and one-half years, Dr. Caillier saw Mr. Morgan
almost a dozen times. Her observations throughout this period are largely
consistent. As well as the symptoms mentioned above, she noted, albeit based on
Mr. Morgan’s reports, that his sleep patterns and respiratory function
were deteriorating, that his anxiety was increasing, and that his mood was
worsening.

[27]       
These various reports were confirmed by Mr. Morgan’s own evidence.
His level of physical activity, so important to his respiratory function and to
combating his existing chronic pain symptoms, dramatically decreased. He did
not get back to lifting any weights. He stopped using his treadmill entirely.
His walking was largely limited to walking in his home for 15 minute periods,
during which he was required to take breaks. Though his wife said that they
would sometimes go for a brief walk outside, this was much less frequent than
in the past.

[28]       
Mr. Morgan also confirmed that his sleep patterns and respiratory
function were worse after the Accident. He described the change in his mood
since the Accident as “night and day”. His depression is near constant. He has had
thoughts of suicide, though he confirmed that he knew he would not follow up on
such thoughts. He is markedly more withdrawn. He still interacts with family
but he has no interest in seeing friends. He tried, on one occasion, to
organize a poker tournament after the Accident but found that this was beyond
him.

[29]       
Mrs. Morgan’s evidence was also consistent with this description of
Mr. Morgan’s condition. She confirmed that before the Accident Mr. Morgan
had exercised regularly, that this provided him with confidence, and that his 
physical activity has changed both in nature and duration. She accepted that at
times in the past, for example, when Mr. Morgan had been required to stop
working or when he had his surgeries, he had struggled. These periods had been
hard on him. She said, however, that he had come through these periods. She
emphasized several times that he is a “fighter”. She said that prior to the
Accident he was happy and outgoing and that his confidence was amazing. She
confirmed that he was excited about getting the injections from Dr. Caillier
because he would be able to do more weights.

[30]       
She described her husband as a changed man. She said that he is
consistently depressed and that this depression is of a different nature than
in the past. Though he is “good” with her, he will often not speak for periods
of time. He has no self-confidence. He has no desire to go anywhere, or to see
anyone or to do anything. I accept Mrs. Morgan’s evidence.

[31]       
To aid in my assessment of the change in Mr. Morgan’s condition
after the Accident, I was provided with a summary of the medications that Mr. Morgan
took in the year or two before the Accident and in the years which followed it.
That summary was divided into “mood/sleep” medications and “pain” medications. The
summary reveals a dramatic change in the number of medications that Mr. Morgan
was taking and in the frequency that he took such medication. That range and
frequency of use continues to the present time.

[32]       
Mr. Morgan’s future prospects were described in Dr. Caillier’s
report under the heading “Prognosis”:

Given the chronicity of Mr. Morgan’s pain symptoms prior
to the motor vehicle accident of August 29, 2008, the likelihood of him
becoming pain-free is poor. He is likely to have ongoing chronic pain now and
into the future and impart the neck and low back symptoms are residual to the
motor vehicle accident on August 29, 2008 and further negatively impacted by
his ability or inability to exercise as well as his chronic lung condition.

It is my opinion that Mr. Morgan
would likely have continued to experience on-and-off symptoms flares involving
his neck and low back, even if he had not been in the motor vehicle accident,
as he was experiencing a flareup of his low back prior to my having seen him on
August 22, 2008.

Analysis

[33]       
The principal claim advanced by Mr. Morgan is for his non-pecuniary
losses. By virtue of his pre-existing respiratory condition he was already on a
disability pension and no claim for past or future wage loss was advanced.

[34]       
Mr. Morgan’s life, prior to the Accident, was already much
curtailed in terms of the range of activities that he was able to participate
in. He had a serious respiratory ailment. He suffered from “chronic” pain, in
the sense that I have described, in his neck, low back, and joints. He experienced
some sleep, anxiety, and depression problems, as well as headaches.

[35]       
The defendant argues that the Accident caused an “exacerbation” of these
conditions. As a matter of definition this is true. There are instances,
however, where a worsening in a condition gives rise to more than a change in
degree. Instead, in real terms, it gives rise to a change in kind.

[36]       
I find that this is so for several of Mr. Morgan’s symptoms. I have
said that his pain symptoms changed from being recurring in nature, with
periodic “flareups” or, as Dr. Caillier described it, of an “on and off”
nature, to being enduring in nature and markedly more severe. That reality has
dramatically curtailed Mr. Morgan’s ability to follow his exercise regime.
That regime, in turn, is vital to his respiratory health and to the management
of his chronic pain. It was also one of the few physical activities that Mr. Morgan
could participate in and it provided him with a sense of confidence. Further, it
is clear to me that it also provided him with pleasure and with a sense of
pride.

[37]       
There is no question that Mr. Morgan has become further de-conditioned
since the Accident. He testified that his respiratory function has worsened.
There was no admissible evidence before me that Mr. Morgan’s chances of
being accepted onto a list of prospective transplant donees have diminished as
a result of the Accident. Nevertheless I consider that I can, in my assessment
of Mr. Morgan’s non-pecuniary losses, weigh the anxiety or stress that Mr. Morgan
has expressed over his weakened state and its significance for his long term
health.

[38]       
Still further, I find that Mr. Morgan has been transformed from a
generally positive, outgoing, and confident person into one who is reclusive,
who suffers from consistent depression of significant severity, and who is
without energy. I also consider that it is noteworthy that notwithstanding the
significant challenges of various kinds that Mr. Morgan has faced since
childhood, he has always persevered and by virtue of his determination improved
his state. Since the Accident, that is no longer true.

[39]       
I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that but for the
Accident these various adverse changes in Mr. Morgan’s condition would not
have occurred: Clements v. Clements, 2012 SCC 32 at para. 8.

[40]       
In Agar v. Morgan, 2003 BCSC 630, Madam Justice Sinclair Prowse
addressed the question of how the non-pecuniary losses of an already disabled
individual whose circumstances and enjoyment of life are still further
curtailed should be measured. In Agar, the plaintiff’s need for a transplant,
which would have been necessary in any event, was accelerated by an accident. Sinclair
Prowse J. said:

[229]    In determining and
evaluating this loss, the Courts have recognized that an injury to an already
disabled person can be devastating. That is, “[t]o rob a disabled person of
what little she has left is a monstrous injury, for that little she has is, for
her, the whole of her life. Not only is it an enormous physical injury but the
emotional damage is, to most people, well nigh incomprehensible.”  See: Bracey
(Committee of) v. Jahnke, [1995] B.C.J. No. 1850 (S.C.) varied on
other grounds (1997), 34 B.C.L.R. (3d) 191 (C.A.) quoting with approval from
the reasons of the trial judge. See also: Boren v. Vancouver Resource
Society for Physically Disabled, 2002 BCSC 1134 (S.C.); McAllister v.
Sotelo, 1999 Carswell BC 2077 (S.C.); and Heska v. Little, 1999
Carswell BC 596 (S.C.).

[41]       
I consider these comments to be apposite. I have also reviewed the
various cases referred to in the preceding paragraph. The Bracey
decision is particularly useful. The circumstances of the plaintiff in Bracey,
both pre and post-accident, are similar in several respects to those of Mr. Morgan.

[42]       
In Agar, on appeal, Mr. Justice Mackenzie, for the court,
said:

[14]      For comparative purposes, the trial judge referred
to Bracey (Public Trustee of) v. Jahnke, [1995] B.C.J. No. 1850
(S.C.) (QL), varied on other grounds (1997), 34 B.C.L.R. (3d) 191 (C.A.), Boren
v. Vancouver Resource Society for Physically Disabled, 2002 BCSC 1134,
since varied on other grounds, 2003 BCCA 388, McAllister v. Sotelo,
[1999] B.C.J. No. 2132 (QL) and Heska v. Little, [1999] B.C.J. No. 652
(QL), affirmed 2000 BCCA 255.

[15]      Each of those cases involved physical injuries
complicating seriously disabling pre-existing conditions, and non-pecuniary
damages were awarded between $105,000 and $150,000. The trial judge found those
decisions to be helpful although not analogous.

[16]      In my view, the
important difference between those cases and the present one is that in those
cases the complications from the accident-related injuries to the pre-existing
condition would extend over the whole of the remaining life expectancy of the
plaintiff. Here in contrast, the effect of the accident was simply to
accelerate by three years a CF condition that would have resulted in any event,
and the compensation is for the loss of the stable condition during that
three-year period rather than over the whole of Mr. Agar’s life
expectancy.

[43]       
After referring to several further authorities, Mackenzie J.A.
concluded:

[23]      The difference between
the present case and the others is that Mr. Agar’s injuries, apart from
the CF complications, are more serious. Mr. Agar’s knee injury has
resulted in a permanent disability which limits his activities, particularly his
cycling exercise, and it results in pain from prolonged periods of sitting and
standing. These injuries should attract significant non-pecuniary damages apart
from the CF complications. In my view, it should raise the amount of damages
above the $85,000 to $95,000 amounts awarded in York and Haney. Nonetheless,
I think that the award of $175,000 inordinately over-weights those injuries. In
my view, the upper limit of a reasonable award on non-pecuniary damages in this
case is $125,000.

[44]       
The defendant referred to various decisions and placed particular
reliance on Falconar v. Le, 2003 BCSC 1434. Mr. Falconar was an
80-year-old gentleman who suffered from various degenerative conditions that
resulted in a partial disability. For example, though he could walk short
distances, he normally required the use of an electric scooter. He was,
however, “…able to maintain his own apartment, shop and cook for himself,
entertain guests on his own, go to sporting events, take other pleasurable
outings. All these he could do without assistance”: Falconar,
at para. 69. After the accident, Mr. Falconar was required to
move to a care facility and lost the ability to live independently. In making a
non-pecuniary award of $65,000, Mr. Justice Slade emphasized the
importance of this loss of independence. The defendant argues that the award in
Falconar sets the upper limit of Mr. Morgan’s potential recovery
for his non-pecuniary losses.

[45]       
I do not agree. That assertion ignores the significant difference
between the ages of Mr. Falconar and Mr. Morgan, as well as the
breadth and severity of Mr. Morgan’s post-accident difficulties.

[46]       
I have concluded that the other decisions the defendant has relied on
are similarly distinguishable. For example, in Ryan v. Klakowich, 2011
BCSC 835, Madam Justice Ross did not accept the plaintiff’s evidence about the
severity and duration of her injuries. Rather, Ross J. found that the plaintiff
was “a poor historian” and that she minimized the extent and duration of the
injuries she had suffered in previous accidents.

[47]       
There is one further matter of note. Dr. Caillier conceded that it
was “possible” that Mr. Morgan’s chronic pain condition would, at some
point in the future, have worsened to its current state. She further
recommended that Mr. Morgan participate in a pain management clinic and
opined that his participation in such a program might provide him with some
benefit. In Agar, Sinclair Prowse J. said:

[230]    Although pecuniary
damage awards are reduced using a percentage formula to reflect negative
contingencies, this is not the approach adopted in the calculation of
non-pecuniary damages. That is, “[i]n arriving at a global figure which
represents the non-pecuniary loss to the plaintiff, a trial judge will consider
real and substantial future possibilities, both positive and negative which
could impact on the plaintiff’s quality of life. These considerations will be
reflected in the figure which the trial judge arrives at in his assessment of
general non-pecuniary damages. There is no need, as there may be in cases of
future pecuniary losses, to translate these possibilities into a percentage and
to adjust accordingly.” York v. Johnston (1997), 37 B.C.L.R.(3d) 235
(C.A.) quoting with approval from Graham v. Rourke (1990), 75 O.R. (2d)
622 (C.A.).

[48]       
Based on the findings I have made and on the considerations I have
identified, I consider that an appropriate award for Mr. Morgan’s
non-pecuniary losses is $100,000. This figure recognizes and accounts for the
various positive and negative contingencies which exist as well as the various
non-exhaustive factors that are identified in Stapely v. Hejslet, 2006
BCCA 34 at para. 46. I also emphasize that this award recognizes the
difficulties that Mr. Morgan laboured under prior to the Accident and does
not compensate him for such pre-existing difficulties.

Special Damages

[49]       
The parties have agreed that Mr. Morgan’s special damages are
$870.02.

Future Care

[50]       
Mr. Morgan seeks the cost of his participation in a private pain
management program.

[51]       
Future care claims should be assessed by asking what expenses would be
incurred by a reasonable person to obtain medically recommended treatment. In Bystedt
v. Hay, 2001 BCSC 1735, Madam Justice D. Smith, as she then was, observed:

[163]    Thus, the claim must be
supported by evidence that establishes the proposed care is what a reasonable
person of ample means would provide in order to meet what the plaintiff
“reasonably needs to expend for the purpose of making good the loss”…. It
must also be based on an objective test of what is moderate and fair to both
parties…

[52]       
Dr. Caillier recommended that Mr. Morgan attend a private pain
management program and testified that the total cost of such a program,
including the cost of a two-day initial assessment, would be approximately
$13,800. Neither Dr. Caillier’s recommendation nor her estimated cost of
treatment were challenged by the defendant.

[53]       
The defendant does argue, based on Dr. Caillier’s recognition that Mr. Morgan
may have required such treatment in any event, that I reduce the estimated cost
of treatment by 25%. I consider this to be generally reasonable and award Mr. Morgan
$11,000 for the costs of future care.

Mitigation

[54]       
Dr. Caillier recommended that Mr. Morgan engage in various
forms of activity to improve his condition. Overwhelmingly, Mr. Morgan adhered
to these recommendations. He went to perhaps 20 physiotherapy treatments,
before concluding that they were of little benefit. He went to massage therapy.
He tried swimming, until he abandoned those efforts because of his breathing
difficulties. On his own initiative he has tried meditation and relaxation
techniques to assist with his depression and sleep difficulties. He has followed
the recommendations that have been made to him in connection with various forms
of meditation.

[55]       
Dr. Caillier also recommended that Mr. Morgan see a kinesiologist
a dozen times or so. Mr. Morgan said he did not follow this particular
recommendation because he could not afford to do so. Mrs. Morgan confirmed
that she and her husband discussed the matter and concluded they could not
afford the necessary costs. The evidence before me of Mr. and Mrs. Morgan’s
income suggests that they, of necessity, enjoy a relatively modest lifestyle. A
plaintiff’s financial circumstances are a proper consideration in assessing the
reasonableness of that plaintiff’s effort to mitigate his or her losses: Robbie
v. King, 2003 BCSC 1553 at para. 38.

[56]       
Mr. Morgan is an individual with a long history of addressing his
various challenges in a focused and purposeful manner. In this case, having
regard to the diligence with which Mr. Morgan followed most of the
treatments recommended to him, I am satisfied that his efforts to mitigate his losses
were reasonable.

Loss of Homemaking

[57]       
The evidence advanced by Mr. and Mrs. Morgan in support of
this particular claim was not consistent. Specifically, Mrs. Morgan said
that prior to the Accident Mr. Morgan was able to assist with vacuuming
around the home. Mr. Morgan said that he did not engage in any such
activity prior to the Accident. The other forms of activity that they referred
to, such as washing dishes or general tidying up were not so appreciably
affected by the Accident as to justify an award. Accordingly, I would dismiss
this aspect of Mr. Morgan’s claim.

Summary

[58]       
I have awarded Mr. Morgan the following amounts in respect of the
following claims:

[59]       
I am satisfied that this global amount fairly compensates Mr. Morgan
for his losses.

“Voith J.”