IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Date: 20121015

Docket: M102436

Registry:
Vancouver

Between:

Elizabeth Emily
Rollheiser

Plaintiff

And

Brian Rollheiser
and Stephen Lorne Major

Defendants

Before:
The Honourable Madam Justice Gropper

Reasons for Judgment

Introduction

[1]            
The plaintiff, Ms. Rollheiser, and her husband Brian were involved in a
motor vehicle accident on July 26, 2008 as they were driving eastbound on Highway
1 approaching the 232 Street exit in Langley, British Columbia. The vehicle driven
by Stephen Major, the defendant, was also driving eastbound on Highway 1 and he
collided with the Rollheiser vehicle.

[2]            
Liability is admitted. The issue to be resolved is the quantum of
damages for:

·      
for non-pecuniary loss;

·      
lost income and lost income capacity, both past and future;

·      
loss of housekeeping capacity, both past and future; and

·      
special damages.

Facts

Before the accident

[3]            
In July 2008, Ms. Rollheiser was 48 years old. Since 1981, she has
practiced as a nurse in Alberta. Ms. Rollheiser is married and she has two
adult children.

[4]            
Ms. Rollheiser was involved in many activities before the accident. She
engaged in part-time work in order to be more available for her two children. She
enjoyed being with her husband and the children. She actively supported them. She
was able to do all the housekeeping to a high standard. She enjoyed decorating
the house, painting walls and sewing. She also enjoyed cooking and cleaning
after dinner. She played the piano at least a couple of times a month for about
an hour. The plaintiff enjoyed skiing and she describes herself as an
intermediate-level skier. She was an active swimmer; she swam in the lake at
the summer village where she and her husband had a cabin. Ms. Rollheiser enjoyed
camping. She had an active social life both in the dancing community and the church.
In sum, the plaintiff describes herself before the accident as “richly blessed;
I had a lot of talents and creative outlets in sports and hobbies. Some I was
really good at and some I just enjoyed.”

[5]            
Ms. Rollheiser’s health before the accident was normal except for her diagnosis
of bilateral thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS), which caused both neural and
vascular compression. She was diagnosed with TOS in the early 1980s. She had
three surgeries in 1981, 1982 and 1983. Following the surgeries, Ms. Rollheiser
continued to have weakness in her right hand. In 1985, she sought medical
advice and, as a result, she stopped working as a staff nurse. The lifting
associated with the job exacerbated her TOS.

[6]            
The ongoing symptoms related to the TOS primarily exhibited in Ms.
Rollheiser’s right arm. She would get temporary right ulnar palsy following the
increased use of her arm. She had to stretch her shoulder out several times a week.

The accident

[7]            
As stated, the accident occurred on July 26, 2008. Following the
accident, Ms. Rollheiser was taken to Langley Memorial Hospital by ambulance. The
diagnosis in the emergency room was “contusion right shoulder” and “multiple
abrasions.”  Though no loss of consciousness is noted, Ms. Rollheiser has no
memory of the accident. She continued to vomit for about two days after her
release from the emergency ward.

After the accident

[8]            
Ms. Rollheiser went to see her family physician, Dr. Anton Bergh, on
July 31, 2008. She complained of tenderness to the right bilateral shoulder
with a bruise on the right upper outer arm and tenderness in the interscapular
area on the right shoulder. Dr. Bergh observed limited rotation in the right
shoulder with poor external rotation. He referred her for physiotherapy and he
provided a note advising that she was unable to work and that when she was
finally able to work, that her return should be gradual. Ms. Rollheiser missed
six regularly scheduled shifts and then she returned to work gradually. She resumed
her regular hours and duties on September 23, 2008.

[9]            
The ramifications of the accident have been both physical and
psychological.

[10]        
Ms. Rollheiser says that she has chronic pain. She rates this pain as a “2
out of 10”, at times ranging to a “6 or 7 out of 10”, with 10 being the most
painful. She says that she has myofascial chronic pain in the neck with
movement and pressure in her shoulder and neck on the right side. She has
aching in her arm. She has stabbing pains in her ribs when she sits for too
long.

[11]        
Ms. Rollheiser is limited in grocery shopping; she cannot lift heavy
things. It is also difficult to get through heavy doors. Ms. Rollheiser’s
symptoms interfere with her ability to cook. She claims that she cannot drain a
spaghetti pot or lift a roast out of the oven. She says her shoulders are now asymmetrical
and that this irregularity is obvious when she is wearing a bathing suit or
party dress.Ms. Rollheiser’s injuries have changed the way she dresses. She
does not have a full range of motion in her right shoulder and she finds it
difficult to put on a bra, zip something up the back or put on a belt.

[12]        
 If Ms. Rollheiser is not managing her pain, she wakes up at night. This
interferes with her ability to cope and concentrate. She describes herself as
formerly a sound sleeper. Now she only can sleep effectively if her pain is
under control.

[13]        
When Ms. Rollheiser returned to work in September 2008, she noticed that
she was getting dizzy climbing stairs. She was diagnosed by a physiotherapist
to have positional vertigo. It has improved with therapy. She requires therapy
every six months or so to address her vertigo.

[14]        
Ms. Rollheiser says that her recreational activities have been
severely limited. She can no longer engage in decorating the house or shopping.
Her hobbies, which include playing the piano, sewing, knitting, attending
concerts and church and providing parental support for her children’s activity,
are now limited. She has not skied since the accident. She finds that she is unable
to swim in the lake, engage in deep water aerobics or go Seadooing. She has not
returned to dancing.

[15]        
She also considers herself to be more sensitive; for instance, she is easily
overwhelmed whenever there is a family issue that involves emotional intensity.
She claims she feels like she is “drowning” in anxiety and frustration. She
says she cannot support her family. She has to walk away, which she describes
as “not what a mother is supposed to be doing”.

[16]        
Ms. Rollheiser says the accident has increased her anxiety driving and that
she has become hyper vigilant. If she is driving she needs to plan for breaks
and she becomes nervous in unpredictable traffic, particularly if she is a
passenger.

[17]        
Ms. Rollheiser feels that people treat her differently now. She believes
that people treat her as if she doesn’t know as much; they feel sorry for her
and they do not appear to believe that she can help them with decisions. She
describes herself as lacking the energy to get involved with her family’s
issues. In any case, she feels that they do not want to discuss these issues
with her anymore.

Medical Reports

[18]        
Dr. Bergh notes that he has seen Ms. Rollheiser on multiple occasions
following the accident. She has gone through several radiological
investigations, including x-rays, CT scans and MRIs. In his report on February
1, 2012, Dr. Bergh summarizes the history of her injury as follows:

In summary her complaints pertain mainly to limitation of
movement of the neck and shoulder girdles (particularly on the right), weakness
of the right arm & hand, and limitation of the jaw opening (to such an
extent that she required a general anaesthetic for routine dental work). She
experienced psychological stress. She experienced vertigo.

She underwent physiotherapy,
chiropractic treatment, psychotherapy, management by a specialist in physical
medicine & rehabilitation, assessment in a spinal clinic, management by a
thoracic surgeon, and multiple radiological investigations. Her physiotherapy
included range of movement physiotherapy for tight muscles, vestibular particle
repositioning, physiotherapy for her benign positional vertigo and, later, more
specialised physiotherapy, arranged by her thoracic surgeon.

[19]        
Dr. Bergh opines that the motor vehicle accident precipitated the
following:

1.              
recurrence of TOS;

2.              
benign positional vertigo;

3.              
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and psychological stress;

4.              
Whiplash Associated Disorder (WAD);

5.              
Chronic Regional Myofascial Pain (CRPS); and

6.              
right hand weakness.

[20]        
Dr. Bergh is of the opinion that the accident is not the causative
factor for Ms. Rollheiser’s right rotator cuff tendonitis as, he says, “this is
a common condition which, commonly presents in this patient’s age range…”  He
also considers that the accident did not cause the ongoing massater muscle
spasm that required anesthesia for dental work.

[21]        
Dr. Bergh has recommended several treatments which Ms. Rollheiser has
been diligent in seeking out. These treatments include physiotherapy;
psychotherapy; management by specialists in physical medicine and
rehabilitation; consultation with a thoracic surgeon; assessment in a spinal clinic;
multiple radiological investigations; analgesic medications; and prescription
medications, including muscle relaxant medication and multiple trigger point
injections to the shoulder girdle muscles.

[22]        
Dr. Bergh opines that Ms. Rollheiser will need to engage in future
treatments, including specialized physiotherapy, physiatry treatments, thoracic
surgery management and ongoing psychotherapy referrals.

[23]        
Dr. Bergh believes it is likely that there will be “ongoing disability
due to the TOS with right hand weakness, chronic myofascial pain and
psychological stress”. He also suggests that it is possible that Ms. Rollheiser
will require thoracic outlet surgery in the future.

[24]        
Dr. Flaschner, a specialist in physical medicine and rehabilitation,
also provided a report, dated February 2, 2012. Dr. Flaschner initially saw Ms.
Rollheiser on December 2, 2009. His diagnosis included exacerbation of
pre-existing TOS and musculoligamentous injuries to the cervical and thoracic
spine. He states:

Ms. Rollheiser has subsequently been seen on numerous
occasions for symptomatic management. She has undergone various trials of
medications, local anesthetic trigger point injections botulinum toxin injections
and has also been receiving regular IMS therapy from her physical therapist. Her
pain has evolved as well and the current diagnoses secondary to the motor
vehicle collision would include:

1.   Thoracic outlet syndrome,
exacerbation of pre-existing injury.

2.   Cervical
WAD II injury with chronic regional myofascial pain syndrome.

3.   Thoracic musculoligamentous injury
with chronic regional myofascial pain syndrome.

[25]        
Dr. Flaschner considers that Ms. Rollheiser’s symptoms will continue
indefinitely.

[26]        
Dr. Flaschner’s report continues:

Further symptomatic management
options for the chronic regional myofascial pain syndrome would include regular
physical activity from a cardiovascular perspective as well as stretching and
strengthening of the painful musculature, ensuring adequate restorative sleep,
various manual therapies, medications as well as needle based therapies
including acupuncture, IMS, local anesthetic  trigger point injections,
botulinum toxin injections or potentially fluoroscopically guided facet based
procedures. It should be noted that the treatments will be expected to provide
some temporary relief and would not be expected to be curative.

Assessment of Damages

Non-Pecuniary Damages

[27]        
Non-pecuniary damages are awarded to compensate the plaintiff for pain,
suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of amenities. A list of factors
has been provided in many cases: Stapley v. Hejslet, 2006 BCCA 34, at
para. 46. The factors include:

·      
the plaintiff’s age;

·      
the nature of the injury; the severity and duration of the pain;

·      
the level of disability;

·      
emotional suffering;

·      
loss of lifestyle or impairment of life.

The compensation should be fair to all parties. Fairness is
measured against all awards made in comparable cases which provide general
guidance. Each case must be decided on its own facts.

[28]        
The medical reports establish that the plaintiff suffered several
injuries in the accident, including an exacerbation of her pre-existing TOS, a
grade II cervical whiplash associated disorder with chronic myofascial pain
syndrome; and a thoracic musculoligamentous injury with chronic regional
myofascial pain. These injuries caused generalized pain in the soft tissues of
Ms. Rollheiser’s neck and back. Dr. Bergh also refers to additional injuries,
including benign positional vertigo, PTSD and psychological stress and right
hand weakness.

[29]        
Neither physician attributes the pain arising from the right rotator
cuff tendonitis to the accident.

[30]        
In respect of the benign positional vertigo, Ms. Rollheiser describes
seeing a specialist in vestibular physiotherapy that treats her on an “as
needed” basis. This treatment causes her to feel dizzy. Her last appointment
before the trial was late in 2010. Ms. Rollheiser expected to see the
vestibular physiotherapist again in June 2012.

[31]        
Ms. Rollheiser seeks damages in the range of $110,000. She says that the
injuries she sustained in the accident have been life changing and that they
have diminished all aspects of her life, including family, recreation, church,
music and social life.

[32]        
The defendant asserts that the plaintiff’s injuries are not all
attributable to the motor vehicle accident, particularly those associated with
her right shoulder. She missed six days of work following the accident and she
returned to her pervious hours of work on September 23, 2008. Her dizziness was
resolved by the end of 2010. The defendant argues that the plaintiff’s
pre-existing TOS created weakness in the plaintiff’s hands from the elbow down
and even before the accident, she already avoided heavy lifting. He says that
the plaintiff is able to function normally with some limitations.

[33]        
The defendant argues that general damages of $40,000 to $60,000 are
appropriate.

[34]        
I have reviewed the case authorities provided by both the plaintiff and
the defendant. I consider that Ms. Rollheiser, now 52 years old, has suffered
moderate injuries. The pain associated with those injuries is moderately severe
and ongoing. Ms. Rollheiser claims that the injuries have resulted in her
having to change her lifestyle dramatically. She is unable to engage in all the
various activities she previously enjoyed. The ongoing pain and disability has
created psychological distress.

[35]        
In sum, Ms. Rollheiser’s injuries have reduced her enjoyment of life. There
has been impairment of family, marital and social relationships as well as
physical abilities.

[36]        
As noted, the case authorities provide guidance only; no two cases are
exactly alike.

[37]        
I agree with the defendant that not all of Ms. Rollheiser’s symptoms are
attributable to the accident. It appears that some of the plaintiff’s limitations
are due to the rotator cuff as opposed to injuries from the accident.

[38]        
Of the authorities provided, I find Kaleta v. MacDougall, 2011
BCSC 1259 (Kaleta) to be most instructive. Justice Truscott awarded a 28
year-old male plaintiff non-pecuniary damages of $80,000 for soft tissue
injuries to the knee, back, arm, shoulder and neck. Like Ms. Rollheiser, Mr.
Kaleta only missed a brief period from work, although he found it to be more
difficult to resume work upon his return. Again, like Ms. Rollheiser, his moderate
ongoing pain was probably chronic.

[39]        
Accordingly, I assess Ms. Rollheiser’s non-pecuniary damages at $80,000.

Income Loss

 Past income loss

[40]        
The parties have agreed that the plaintiff has suffered a net past wage
loss of $636.55.

 Loss of earning capacity

[41]        
Ms. Rollheiser claims a loss of earning capacity for both the past and
future.

[42]        
At the time of the accident Ms. Rollheiser was working approximately .6 full
time equivalent (three eight hour days per week). She and her husband had planned
for her to work part-time while their children were in school. She would return
to full-time work when the children went to university. Her son went to
university in 2006, after which time Ms. Rollheiser started working more hours.
Her daughter left for university in September 2010, which would have left the
plaintiff free to pursue a full-time nursing management position. This had been
her goal. Ms. Rollheiser claims she loves her work and that she is good at it.
She claims that there are plenty of job opportunities for nurses with her
particular skills in nursing education and management.

[43]        
The plaintiff says that because of her limitations, including reduced
energy, fatigue and pain, it is not possible for her to work full-time. Even on
a part-time basis, she must get up and move around regularly. She cannot work a
rigid eight-hour per day, five-day-a-week job. She also has difficulty with
deadlines. She believes her work would suffer from her lack of energy.

[44]        
Ms. Rollheiser asserts that by fall 2008, she could have taken a job
with more hours. She estimates that her loss per year, from 2008 to 2010, is
between $30,000 and $40,000 per year.

[45]        
Ms. Rollheiser further claims that by 2010, she would have been employed
in the front line as a nursing manager. At a salary starting $110,000 a year,
Ms. Rollheiser by 2011 would have reached mid-level management with a salary of
approximately $140,000 a year. She calculates her total past loss of capacity
as $202,000, or more conservatively, a loss of about $30,000 per year since
2008 calculated at $120,800.

[46]        
In respect of her claim for future loss of earning capacity, Ms.
Rollheiser says that by the time of this trial, she would be working at a mid-management
level as a nurse, at $140,000 per year. She anticipates that she would work
full-time until age 67. Ms. Rollheiser provides several alternative formulas to
calculate her future loss of capacity. She calculates her claim at approximately
$375,000.

[47]        
The defendant says that the plaintiff has self-imposed limitations on
working full-time. Neither of her physicians has confirmed that she is unable
to work full-time. The plaintiff agrees that she never discussed her hours of
work with either of her doctors. After missing six regularly scheduled shifts
and returning on a graduated basis until September 23, 2008, the plaintiff has
performed all her regular duties. She still receives positive reviews of her
work performance. The plaintiff actually increased her income and hours of work
steadily and continuously since 2006, and the injuries from the accident have
not interfered with that progression. She has earned more income after the
accident.

[48]        
The defendant points out that no medical opinion has been supplied in
respect of the work that Ms. Rollheiser is able to perform now or in the future.
Ms. Rollheiser has not proven that there is a real and substantial possibility
of any future income loss. Her future loss of capacity claim is based on
conjecture: she asks the Court to assume that she would work full-time as a
nurse manager until the age of 67. However, Ms. Rollheiser does not have
experience in mid-management and she has never performed such a job.

[49]        
Compensation for loss of earning capacity is to be based on what the
plaintiff would have, not could have, earned but for the injury that was
sustained: Rowe v. Bobell Express Ltd., 2005 BCCA 141 at para. 30; M.B.
v. British Columbia, 2003 SCC 53 at paras. 49 – 50. That said, the assessment
of lost past earning capacity requires a consideration of hypothetical events. These
hypothetical events may be taken into consideration so long as there is a real
and substantial possibility and it is not mere speculation: Athey v. Leonati,
[1996] 3 S.C.R. 458, at para. 27.

[50]        
A claim for loss of future earning capacity requires the Court to
consider whether the plaintiff’s earning capacity has been impaired by her
injuries and if so what compensation should be awarded for the resulting
financial harm that will accrue over time. The Court must assess the loss based
on the evidence and it cannot apply a mathematical calculation.

[51]        
The case authorities set out two approaches for the assessment of loss
of future earning capacity: the “earnings approach” from Pallos v. Insurance
Corporation of British Columbia (1995), 100 B.C.L.R. (2d) 260, [1995] 3
W.W.R. 728 (C.A.) and the “capital asset approach” in Brown v. Golaiy
(1985), 26 B.C.L.R. (3d) 353, [1985] B.C.J. No. 31 (S.C.) (Brown).

[52]        
The earnings approach involves a mathematical methodology. The court
first postulates the minimum annual income loss for the plaintiff’s remaining
years of work, multiplies the annual projected loss by the number of remaining
years and calculates a present value. Alternatively, this approach awards the
plaintiff’s entire annual income for a year or two.

[53]        
The capital asset approach considers whether the plaintiff

1)             
has been rendered less capable overall in earning income from any type
of employment;

2)             
is less marketable or attractive as a potential employee;

3)             
has lost the ability to take advantage of job opportunities that might
otherwise have been open; and

4)             
is less marketable to herself as a person capable of earning income in a
competitive labour market.

[54]        
In considering Ms. Rollheiser’s claim for loss of future earning
capacity, I consider the following factors:

1)             
Some of the limitations which Ms. Rollheiser is experiencing are not
accident-related;

2)             
Ms. Rollheiser as a nurse is capable of assessing her limitations.
However, an objective consideration of her limitations by one of her physicians
would have been of great assistance to this Court;

3)             
The plaintiff’s goal was to work full-time after her children left home.
Her daughter did not go to university until two years following the accident.

4)             
The only source of evidence concerning availability of positions,
attributable salary levels and job duties is provided by the plaintiff, who has
never held such a position.

[55]        
As a consequence, I find that the earnings approach is not available. Based
on the evidence, I cannot determine the annual projected loss in order to
multiply that number by the remaining years. The capital asset approach is
applicable, in spite of my reservations concerning the evidence about this
aspect of the plaintiff’s loss.

[56]        
I accept that Ms. Rollheiser is entitled to compensation for a real and
substantial possibility of loss in income, despite having returned to her usual
employment: Perren v. Lalari, 2010 BCCA 140 (Perren).

[57]        
At para. 11, Perren also refers to the factors outlined by Justice
Finch, as he then was, in Brown:

1. The plaintiff has been rendered less capable overall from
earning income from all types of employment;

2. The plaintiff is less marketable or attractive as an
employee to potential employers;

3. The plaintiff has lost the ability to take advantage of
all job opportunities which might otherwise have been open to [her], had [she]
not been injured; and

4. The plaintiff is less valuable
to [herself] as a person capable of earning income in a competitive labour
market.

[58]        
I find that the plaintiff has demonstrated that she meets all four
factors.

[59]        
I do not consider that Ms. Rollheiser has established a past loss of
earning capacity from the date of the accident until September 2010, the time
at which her daughter left for university. The evidence from both Ms.
Rollheiser and her husband was that she did not intend to return to full-time
work until her children had left their home. I do accept that beginning in
September 2010, the plaintiff has established a loss of earning capacity claim.
I also find that there is a real and substantial possibility that Ms.
Rollheiser would have embarked on an enhanced career in nursing had her
injuries from the motor vehicle accident not interfered with her physical
stamina. Again, I refer to Kaleta, where Truscott J. found that the
plaintiff had a track record of employment that had continued since the
accident.

[60]        
I also note that there is no medical evidence to support the assertion
that there is a risk that the plaintiff’s employment might be interfered with
by her injuries. No functional work capacity evaluation was provided to this
Court. In Kaleta, the court awarded $60,000 as the plaintiff’s capital
asset loss based on his impaired earning capacity.

[61]        
In another case relied on by the plaintiff, Falls v. Falls (1993),
13 B.C.L.R. (3d) 369(S.C.) (appeal dismissed 33 B.C.L.R. (3d) 107 (C.A.)), the
court awarded $35,000 in future loss of earning capacity to a 40-year old nurse
who intended to return to full-time employment when her children left home.

[62]        
I assess the plaintiff’s claim for loss in earning capacity, both past
and future, at $60,000.

Loss of housekeeping capacity

[63]        
Ms. Rollheiser says that she is no longer capable of doing housekeeping
and that her husband has picked up the slack. He does approximately five hours
a week of housekeeping, which she would have otherwise done before the accident.
She calculates the cost of a housekeeper at $25 an hour for 45 minutes a day
from the date of the accident to the date of her retirement. Her claim,
adjusted for present value, is $68,400.

[64]        
In Eccleston v. Dresen, 2009 BCSC 332 (Eccleston), Justice
Barrow awarded the plaintiff $28,000 based on housekeeping services of six
hours per week at $15 per hour for six years following the motor vehicle
accident.

[65]        
I find Eccleston to be instructive. I award the plaintiff $28,000
for past and future loss of housekeeping capacity.

Cost of future care

[66]        
The plaintiff claims for the cost of ongoing physiotherapy indefinitely.
She estimates the cost at $1,700 per year. She also claims mileage representing
her travel costs to and from physiotherapy. She says that a gym membership
would also provide her respite from her pain. In addition, she claims about
$500 per year for over-the-counter medications. Her claim for loss of future
care is $26,000.

[67]        
The defendant says that the plaintiff has attended a significant amount
of treatment since the accident, some of which has been effective. In particular,
the vestibular physiotherapy has cured the plaintiff’s dizziness. He also
agrees that the injections that Ms. Rollheiser receives from Dr. Flaschner
provide some relief to her.

[68]        
However, in respect of the ongoing physiotherapy, the defendant argues that
the plaintiff has already attended 240 sessions since the accident. The
treatments, as described by Dr. Flaschner, are not a cure. The defendant argues
that there is no evidence that they improve the plaintiff’s level of
functioning. The defendant also argues that there is insufficient evidence
regarding the cost of future treatments. This treatment has been paid for
between the plaintiff and her husband’s extended medical benefits. While her
husband intends to retire, the plaintiff intends to work until she is 67 and she
will continue to have extended benefits throughout her employment.

[69]        
I consider that the plaintiff has demonstrated that her ongoing therapy
is of assistance to her, although not curative. I also find that the evidence
to support the plaintiff’s claim for ongoing physiotherapy costs is
insufficient to support a significant future care claim.

[70]        
I assess the plaintiff’s cost of future care at $15,000.

Special damages

[71]        
The parties agree on special damages in the amount of $4,433.58.

[72]        
Ms. Rollheiser is also seeking an additional amount for a hot tub which
she has purchased since the accident at a cost of $4,194.74. The plaintiff says
that hot tub therapy was prescribed by Dr. Flaschner. She agrees that a hot tub
is available through her gym membership. Ms. Rollheiser agreed in
cross-examination that there was no reason why she could not use the hot tub at
the gym. She also has a bath tub at home but finds that it is more difficult to
get out of a hot bath than out of the hot tub.

[73]        
I agree with the defence that the hot tub expense was not reasonably
necessary to promote or preserve her mental or physical health. It is an
amenity which renders Ms. Rollheiser’s life more enjoyable. It does not, in my
view, constitute an expense for which the defendant ought to be liable: X v.
Y, 2011 BCSC 944 at para. 277; Bergman v. Standen, 2010 BCSC 1692 at
para. 67.

Summary

[74]        
In summary, I award the Ms. Rollheiser the following:

Costs

[75]        
Unless there are matters to be addressed, the plaintiff is entitled to
her costs. The parties have leave to make submissions.

“Gropper
J.”