IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Date: 20121204

Docket: M106273

Registry:
Vancouver

Between:

Paul Boutin

Plaintiff

And

Jennifer
MacPherson and Elinor Carol MacPherson

Defendants

Before:
The Honourable Madam Justice Baker

Reasons for Judgment

[1]            
On Friday, January 23, 2009, Mr. Boutin was driving southbound on
Nanaimo Street in Vancouver, in the lane closest to the center line.  Mr.
Boutin is entitled to take every third Friday as a non-working day and was off
work on January 23.  He had driven from his home in Yaletown and was driving to
a restaurant at Nanaimo and Kingsway to meet a friend for lunch.

[2]            
As Mr. Boutin approached the intersection of Nanaimo Street and East
Broadway, the light for traffic on Nanaimo turned red.  Mr. Boutin brought his
vehicle to a stop behind a row of cars that had also stopped for the red
light.  When the light turned green, the line of southbound cars, including Mr.
Boutin’s vehicle, began to move forward.  Almost immediately, however, the
vehicles ahead of Mr. Boutin’s vehicle came to an abrupt stop.  Mr. Boutin
brought his vehicle to a complete stop.  He looked in the rear view mirror and
saw the vehicle driven by the defendant Jennifer MacPherson approaching from
the rear.  Ms. MacPherson failed to stop and her vehicle struck the rear of Mr.
Boutin’s vehicle.

[3]            
The defendants – Elinor Carol MacPherson is the registered owner of the
vehicle driven by Jennifer MacPherson – admit that the collision was caused by
Jennifer MacPherson’s negligence.  The only issue is the quantum of damages to
be awarded to Mr. Boutin for injuries caused by the accident.

[4]            
Neither of the defendants testified at trial.  Mr. Boutin testified that
his vehicle was pushed forward by the impact with Ms. MacPherson’s vehicle.  He
could not recall if his body moved inside his vehicle.  He said that
immediately after the collision, he felt “shocked” about having been involved
in an accident – I understood him to mean he felt surprised; not that he had
physical symptoms of shock.  Almost immediately, he got out of his vehicle and
walked to the rear.  He could not see any damage to the rear of his vehicle. 
He testified he could not determine whether the collision had resulted in any
damage to the front of Ms. MacPherson’s vehicle.  There was damage to the front
of Ms. MacPherson’s vehicle but Mr. Boutin was unable to discern if it was
“new” damage because the defendant’s vehicle was old, rusted, and not well
maintained.

[5]            
Mr. Boutin testified that on later inspection he noticed some marks on
the rear bumper of his vehicle that he speculated might have been caused by
contact with screws attaching Ms. MacPherson’s licence plate to her front
bumper.   The vehicle Mr. Boutin was driving belongs to his partner.  Mr.
Boutin believed that repairs to the vehicle costing a nominal amount −
perhaps $500 − were subsequently authorized by the defendant’s insurer,
but he was not certain about this.

[6]            
Mr. Boutin did not immediately feel any pain or discomfort following the
collision.  He approached Ms. MacPherson, who was still seated in her vehicle,
and told her that they needed to exchange information about insurance.  The two
drivers drove their vehicles through the intersection to avoid blocking traffic
and pulled over to the side of the street.  They exchanged driver’s licence and
registration details after which Ms. MacPherson drove away.  Mr. Boutin stayed
at the scene for about 20 minutes while he wrote notes about the accident. He
then drove to the restaurant and had lunch with his friend as planned.

[7]            
During lunch, Mr. Boutin began to experience pain and a feeling of
tightness in his neck and mid-back.  After lunch, he called his doctor’s office
and made an appointment to see his doctor later that afternoon.  His family
doctor at the time was Dr. Klein.  Dr. Klein subsequently closed his practice
and Mr. Boutin’s present family doctor is Dr. Pavlou.  Dr. Pavlou had access to
Dr. Klein’s clinical records and summarized relevant portions of those records
in an October 30, 2011 medical-legal report he prepared at the request of
plaintiff’s counsel.

MR. BOUTIN’S BACKGROUND

[8]            
Mr. Boutin was 55 years old at time of trial, 53 when the accident
happened.  He grew up in Ontario and Quebec and completed a Bachelor of Science
degree from the University of Montreal in 1979 and a Masters in Business
Administration from Western University in 1984.  He has lived and worked in
Vancouver since 1985.  In December 2008, he was hired to be the manager of
business systems in the informational technology department of the City of
North Vancouver and this is the job he held at the time of the accident and at
time of trial.  Mr. Boutin shares a home with his partner of 10 years.

[9]            
Mr. Boutin was involved in four motor vehicle accidents in the 1980s. 
For reasons that remain unclear to me, he described these accidents and the
effects of the accidents on him in considerable detail while testifying in
direct examination.  His evidence was eventually summarized by him with the
statement that by 2009 he had “substantially” recovered from all of the
injuries caused by the four previous accidents and had no serious health
concerns.  Mr. Boutin’s evidence does indicate that he is very conscious of his
own physical, mental and emotional status.

[10]        
 Mr. Boutin was very physically active prior to the accident, riding his
bike for one to two hours at least once a week and usually more often and
swimming 1.2 to 2 kms every Saturday morning at a Vancouver City pool or, in
summer, in the ocean.  His favorite swimming stroke prior to the accident was
the butterfly stroke.  In 2008, Mr. Boutin began having pain in his right
shoulder while swimming.  He saw his physiotherapist who recommended that he
have his swimming technique reviewed.  Mr. Boutin testified he took a four hour
course to improve his butterfly technique and that solved the shoulder pain
problem.

[11]        
In the past, Mr. Boutin had competed in cross-country mountain bike
racing at two international Gay Games, winning a silver medal at one of the
competitions.  He and his partner had taken up the sport of tennis in 2007 and
played regularly.  However, prior to the accident, Mr. Boutin had developed a
problem with his right wrist that was caused and/or exacerbated by playing
tennis.  Mr. Boutin regularly worked out at a fitness centre, usually three
times a week.  He also enjoyed recreational hiking on various trails in the Lower
Mainland.

[12]        
Prior to the accident, Mr. Boutin had physiotherapy treatments, massage
therapy treatments, and chiropractic treatments on a regular basis.  In 2008,
the year immediately prior to the accident, Mr. Boutin had been to see his
chiropractor 12 times; his physiotherapist nine times and had been for massage
therapy three times.  There was a similar pattern of usage in 2006 and 2007.  I
infer that the cost of these treatments was covered by Mr. Boutin’s employment
health care plan because there is evidence that Mr. Boutin’s insurance company
required him to obtain a note from Dr. Klein referring Mr. Boutin to
physiotherapy, massage therapy and chiropractic care and that Dr. Klein readily
supplied these notes.

[13]        
Mr. Boutin testified that these treatments were for “maintenance” and to
counteract the effects of his sedentary job and the amount of time he spent
working at a computer.  He said his practice was to tell his chiropractor about
problem areas and the chiropractor then focused on those areas.  Mr. Boutin
generally had a full body massage when he saw his massage therapist.   On
visits to his physiotherapist the physiotherapist concentrated on Mr. Boutin’s
wrist, right shoulder and possibly his neck, according to Mr. Boutin’s
testimony.  The physiotherapy treatments included acupuncture − Mr.
Boutin recalled that he had physiotherapy treatments for his neck and possibly
his lower back in 2008.

[14]        
Mark Borslein has been Mr. Boutin’s physiotherapist since early 2007. 
He testified that in 2008 he treated Mr. Boutin for “postural intolerance”
using exercise, acupuncture and manual therapy.  Mr. Boutin had tendonitis in
his right wrist and right shoulder.  Mr. Borslein testified that he had
concentrated on Mr. Boutin’s hip, shoulders and low back before the accident;
and on his neck and mid-back after the accident.  He testified that he had also
treated Mr. Boutin’s mid-back before the accident, but not for acute injury. 
Mr. Borslein agreed in cross-examination that prior to the accident he had also
treated Mr. Boutin for a rib-cage problem in the mid-back.  Prior to testifying
at trial, he had last treated Mr. Boutin on December 28, 2011.

[15]        
Mr. Boutin testified that he was seen by Dr. Klein at about 3:00 p.m. on
the day of the accident.   According to Dr. Pavlou’s report, Dr. Klein recorded
that Mr. Boutin had mid to low back discomfort.  Dr. Klein assessed Mr. Boutin
to have full range of motion, no neurological deficits and minimal tenderness. 
He diagnosed a mild soft tissue strain.  He recommended that Mr. Boutin reduce
his level of physical activity; apply ice to the affected areas, and use over
the counter anti-inflammatory medication as necessary.  Mr. Boutin testified
that later that day he developed a headache that persisted over the next two
weeks.

[16]        
Mr. Boutin rested at home on the evening of the day the accident
happened, and cancelled a plan to go out for the evening in order to have an
early night.  He put ice on his back and also took some Motrin, an over the
counter medication.  He did not go swimming on Saturday morning as he had
planned to do, and he stayed home on Saturday night instead of going to an
opera.  He did not ride his bike on Sunday morning.

[17]        
Mr. Boutin had only recently started his job with the City of North
Vancouver and was still in his 12 month probationary period, so he did not want
to miss work.  Although his neck and back were sore, he went to work as
scheduled on the Monday following the day of the accident and has not missed
any work due to the accident injuries.

[18]        
Because of the accident injuries, Mr. Boutin did forego opportunities to
work overtime and the parties have agreed that Mr. Boutin lost the opportunity
to work overtime that would have resulted in gross income to him of $3,308 and
that an award should be made.  Counsel advised that they will arrive at an
adjusted figure that reflects what the award should be, net of tax, to be
included in the court order.

[19]        
Although Dr. Klein did not recommend any type of therapy when he saw Mr. Boutin
on January 23, Mr. Boutin went for massage therapy on January 28, February 12
and February 18, 2009 and chiropractic treatment on January 31, February 4 and
February 14, 2009, before returning to see Dr. Klein on February 27, 2009, just
over one month post-accident.

[20]        
According to Dr. Pavlou’s report, Mr. Boutin told Dr. Klein on February
27 that he had had mid-back pain for three to four weeks after the accident,
but that it had improved.

[21]        
Apparently there is no reference in Dr. Klein’s notes to complaints of
neck pain although Mr. Boutin testified that he had constant neck pain for the
first month after the accident and then began to improve both in terms of
intensity and frequency.  Mr. Boutin’s counsel asked him to rate the level of
pain or discomfort at various times on a scale of 0 to 10; 0 being pain-free
and 10 being pain that was totally debilitating.  Mr. Boutin said that his neck
pain was initially “5” but after six months eased off gradually to 1 or 2, and
remained there until May 2011.

[22]        
By February 27, according to Dr. Klein’s notes, Mr. Boutin was having
headaches only “occasionally”.  Mr. Boutin testified that his headaches became
intermittent after two weeks and that after by the end of three months he was
having headaches as about the same frequency as before the accident.

[23]        
On February 27, Dr. Klein advised Mr. Boutin to go to the gym.  Mr.
Boutin testified that he had continued to go to the gym after the accident, but
modified his routine to avoid discomfort from his accident injuries.   Dr.
Klein appears to have approved of Mr. Boutin’s use of massage and chiropractic
therapy and to have recommended physiotherapy also.

[24]        
At this visit, Mr. Boutin also talked to Dr. Klein about the problem
with his right wrist.  Mr. Boutin testified that prior to the accident he had
ongoing right wrist symptoms that he believed to be related to the continuous
use of a computer “mouse” at his previous employment; and possibly also to playing
tennis, a sport in which he hoped to compete at the International Gay Games in
Copenhagen in the summer of 2009.   Mr. Boutin’s evidence about whether the
accident had any effect on his right wrist was inconsistent.  He said that the
accident exacerbated the pre-existing wrist problem but that it was only “a
little aggravated”, but also said he could not distinguish between the
condition of his wrist before and after the accident.  I am satisfied that Mr.
Boutin did not injure his right wrist in the motor vehicle accident in January
2009 and that the accident did not exacerbate the pre-existing wrist condition

[25]        
Mr. Boutin testified that on a scale of 1 to 10, the severity of pain in
his mid-back was 5 on a scale of 0 to 10 for a long time, but had diminished to
3 by November 2010 and that by that time he was having periods as long as a
week during which he was pain free.   By April 2011, the severity of pain in
his mid-back area was as low as 2.  He testified he had a flare-up in May 2011.

[26]        
Mr. Boutin testified that he did not require prescription medication to
alleviate his pain at any time following the accident.  He took six to eight
over-the-counter Motrin tablets each day for approximately six months following
the accident and then stopped taking it, or took it only sporadically until the
second half of 2011 when he increased his intake of Motrin.

[27]        
After the visit on February 27, 2009, Mr. Boutin did not return to see
Dr. Klein again until June 11, 2009.  He had returned to working out at the gym
within a month after the accident.  By April 2009, he was back to cycling,
although he testified he biked less often and for shorter distances.  He had
also resumed playing tennis a week after the accident although he did not do
serves for a time.  He and his partner hoped to compete in international Gay
Games later that summer, but Mr. Boutin did not compete although he took his
tennis racquet to Copenhagen with him.  He had also gone back to swimming
within weeks after the accident, but found that the butterfly stroke aggravated
his back pain.

[28]        
Between February 27, 2009 and June 11, 2009, Mr. Boutin had 13
chiropractic treatments, nine massage therapy treatments and six physiotherapy
treatments.  Mr. Boutin testified that following the accident, his chiropractor
focused on “adjusting” his neck and the left side of his back.  He said that
his physiotherapist focused on “releasing” his neck and back in various ways,
including acupuncture; and also recommended exercises for strengthening his
back.  Mr. Boutin testified that after the accident the massage therapist
concentrated on his neck and back.

[29]        
Mr. Boutin did not testify about the effect that any of these passive
treatments had on his accident injuries or the symptoms caused by his
injuries.  He did not testify that he found any of these treatments to be
beneficial in the sense that the treatments caused his musculoskeletal
complaints to resolve; or even provided temporary relief from pain or
discomfort.  It may be possible to infer that Mr. Boutin found one or more of
these modes of treatment to be helpful in some way from the fact that he continued
to go for treatment, but the lack of direct evidence on this point is
troubling.   I said earlier that although Dr. Klein approved of Mr. Boutin’s
decision to have massage therapy and chiropractic treatments, Mr. Boutin initiated
these treatments and determined the frequency of same.

[30]        
On June 11, 2009, Mr. Boutin reported to Dr. Klein that he was
continuing to have pain on the left side of his mid-back, made worse by
prolonged sitting and by playing tennis.  Mr. Boutin testified that the most
painful symptoms were in the area of his mid-back to the shoulder blade on his
left side, and his left shoulder; and to a lesser extent, discomfort in his
neck.  He testified that his lower back was not affected by the accident.

[31]        
In July or early August 2009, Dr. Klein retired from the practice of
medicine and Mr. Boutin was obliged to find a new family doctor.  He found Dr.
Pavlou, whose clinic location is close to Mr. Boutin’s home.  Mr. Boutin had
what he described as an introductory “meet and greet” consultation with Dr.
Pavlou on August 19, 2009.  They did not discuss Mr. Boutin’s symptoms in any
detail, but Mr. Boutin told Dr. Pavlou that he was seeing a
physiotherapist and massage therapist for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle
accident.

[32]        
After June 11, 2009, Mr. Boutin did not consult a physician about the
accident injuries until he saw Dr. Pavlou on January 9, 2010.  Mr. Boutin had
physiotherapy once in each of July, November, and December 2009.  He had 11
massage therapy treatments and 17 chiropractic visits between June 11, 2009 and
January 9, 2010.

[33]        
According to Dr. Pavlou’s report, Mr. Boutin scheduled the appointment
on January 9, 2010 to “update” Dr. Pavlou on his progress.  Mr. Boutin told Dr.
Pavlou he was still having left upper back discomfort between his shoulder
blades and had also developed right shoulder pain.  Dr. Pavlou agreed in
cross-examination at trial that he had never carried out a physical examination
of Mr. Boutin in relation to the accident injuries and had only received
reports from the plaintiff of his symptoms.  He also agreed that he had never
referred Mr. Boutin for physiotherapy, massage therapy or chiropractic
treatment but that if Mr. Boutin found it to be beneficial, he would support
Mr. Boutin’s decision to have those therapies.

[34]        
Mr. Boutin did not have physiotherapy between January and August 2010
because his regular physiotherapist had left the clinic he had been working out
of, and delayed setting up at a new location.

[35]        
Mr. Boutin gave Dr. Pavlou another update on June 2, 2010 when Mr.
Boutin saw Dr. Pavlou for an unrelated issue.  Mr. Boutin told Dr. Pavlou he
was having ongoing discomfort in his upper back and parascapular area and
believed the discomfort to be exacerbated by the great amount of personal
stress he was experiencing at that time.

[36]        
Mr. Boutin saw Dr. Pavlou again on October 15, 2010 to update Dr. Pavlou
on his condition.  Mr. Boutin reported he was having shoulder/parascapular
strain on both the left and right side, for which he was still having massage
therapy.

[37]        
At a visit for an unrelated matter on December 22, 2010 Mr. Boutin
mentioned to Dr. Pavlou that his back discomfort was gradually feeling better
and better.  He was having weekly chiropractic and monthly physiotherapy
treatments.  Mr. Boutin dropped in to Dr. Pavlou’s office on April 8, 2011 to
provide another update.  The last visit before Dr. Pavlou wrote his
medical-legal report was October 8, 2011.  Mr. Boutin reported he had had
a flare-up of left upper and mid back pain that he attributed to prolonged sitting
during a conference he had attended.  Mr. Boutin testified this was a
conference in Dallas and that the chairs at the conference facility were really
bad.

[38]        
Mr. Boutin testified at trial that he had had a major exacerbation of
pain in his neck and mid-back in May 2011; that since that time his neck had
improved somewhat but his mid-back pain remained intractable.  This description
is not entirely consistent with Dr. Pavlou’s report of the information provided
to him in October 2011.  Mr. Boutin also agreed that by time of trial he had
already worked 70 hours of overtime in 2011 despite the reported flare-up of
symptoms.

[39]        
Mr. Boutin testified that he was now relying on his partner to do more
of the housecleaning than he used to do; and also to walk their dog more often
because the dog is stubborn and pulling on the leash causes back discomfort for
Mr. Boutin.

[40]        
Mr. Boutin testified that he had sleep issues before the accident but
now finds that if he sleeps on his left side he has discomfort.

[41]        
I conclude that the plaintiff suffered mild to moderate soft tissue
injuries to his neck, scapular muscles on the left side, and the left-side of
his mid-back.  The injuries did not impair range of motion in his neck or back
at any time.  The plaintiff had headaches for a time but these had resolved
completely within three months following the accident.  The mid-back pain had
significantly improved within a month after the accident and the neck pain by
six months after the accident.  There was some discomfort after six months, and
some flare-ups or exacerbations but the discomfort was never debilitating or
disabling.  Mr. Boutin missed no work due to his accident injuries but did
forego some opportunities to work overtime.  He was able to resume most of his
recreational activities and sports within a few weeks after the accident but
has had to modify some of his recreational and sporting activities to avoid a
flare-up of s symptoms.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

[42]        
The plaintiff is seeking an award of $30,000 for non-pecuniary damages,
$8,850 for special damages, and $9,000 for the cost of future care.

[43]        
The defendant submits that $20,000 is the appropriate award for
non-pecuniary damages; that the special damages claim reflects excessive and
unnecessary therapy treatments; and that no award is warranted for future care.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

[44]        
Plaintiff’s counsel referred the court to the decision in Heinze v.
Dulay and Nissan Canada Inc., 2008 BCSC 969 in which the court awarded
$40,000 in non-pecuniary damages, before a deduction for the plaintiff’s
failure to mitigate his damages.  The facts of that case are not similar to the
facts in the case at bar.  That case involved a t-bone collision.  The
plaintiff Heinze was much older than Mr. Boutin and was employed in a
physically demanding job involving moving and welding pieces of steel weighing
up to 100 lbs.  He was off work for some time after the accident and returned
to work earlier than his doctor advised because of economic necessity.   The
trial judge concluded Mr. Heinze had suffered a mild to moderate soft tissue
injury; that the symptoms were exacerbated by his heavy work duties; and that
the injuries to his neck and upper back had largely resolved within 10 to 12
months after the accident with occasional flare-ups.

[45]        
In Cheng v. Kamboz, 2009 BCSC 1160, the court awarded the
plaintiff Cheng $45,000 for exacerbation of pre-existing conditions; and
chronic pain syndrome that developed after the accident.  In that case, the
plaintiff had headaches, neck and shoulder pain, right hip pain and low back
pain following the accident.

[46]        
Cory v. March, an unreported decision of the Court of Appeal
issued January 29, 1993 in Vancouver Registry No. CA011032 was also cited by
Mr. Boutin’s counsel but is of little assistance to the court as it was an
appeal from a jury award.  The Court noted that the quantum of an award for
non-pecuniary damages is a finding of fact with which an appellate court may
only interfere if satisfied that the judge applied a wrong principle of law; or
the amount is so inordinately high, or low, to be wholly erroneous.  The Court
noted also that when an assessment of damages is made by a jury, the disparity
between the award made and the award which could properly be made must be even
wider in order to justify intervention at the appellate level.

[47]        
Counsel for the defendant provided the court with Mak v. Eichel,
2008 BCSC 1102.  In that case, the plaintiff had stiffness in her back, neck
and shoulders immediately following the accident, and a bruise on her left
thigh.  She took two weeks off work (she was a warehouse manager) as advised by
her doctor, and modified her duties when she returned to work to reduce or
eliminate physical labour.  Headaches and insomnia resolved within two weeks
after the accident and her neck pain had resolved after four months, with
intermittent neck pain, shoulder pain and stiffness intermittently after that
time.  The court awarded $20,000 for non-pecuniary damages.

[48]        
Woods v. Chahal, 2008 BCSC 1555, involved a young male plaintiff
who developed stiffness and “a little bit of pain” in his neck, upper and lower
back, and left arm, the day following a rear-end collision.  The pain in the
left arm resolved within a few days but the neck and upper back pain
persisted.  He had headaches for more than a month, and occasional nausea and
dizziness for a couple of months after the accident.  He did not miss any time
from his work as a computer game animator but his symptoms affected his
concentration at work.  He had been very active physically before the accident
and had to give these up for a time.  His emotional health was affected as well
as his physical relationship with his girlfriend.  His recovery “plateaued” 11
months after the accident.  The trial judge concluded that Mr. Woods had
suffered a mild to moderate soft tissue injury, was doing well within three
months, was substantially recovered after six months, had some residual
symptoms that did not restrict the nature of his activities but did affect the
degree to which he could participate in his sporting and recreational
activities.  The court awarded $20,000 for non-pecuniary damages.

[49]        
Edmonson v. Payer, 2011 BCSC 118, involved a plaintiff who had
been injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2005.  The plaintiff claimed that
at time of trial − 5 years after the accident − she still had
frequent neck pain and stiffness as well as headaches.  She had remained
physically active and had experienced no significant loss of income.

[50]        
The plaintiff Edmonson had stiffness and pain in her neck and wrist the
day following the accident, and had a headache.  She took only one or two days
off work.  At trial, she testified that she still had recurrent pain and
stiffness that was not constant but frequent and significant enough to make her
life less comfortable and less enjoyable.  The court awarded non-pecuniary
damages of $40,000.   I would consider the injuries in the Edmonson case to be
more severe than those of Mr. Boutin; or at least to have persisted with
more severity over a much longer period of time.

[51]        
As noted earlier, Mr. Boutin is a person who enjoyed a high level of
physical fitness before the accident, and was, in some respects, a competitive
amateur athlete.  Bicycling and swimming were activities he enjoyed and both
were an important part of his fitness regime and his social life.  He also
worked out regularly at a gym; and played tennis with the aim of competing in
an upcoming international amateur competition.

[52]        
While Mr. Boutin did experience some pain, discomfort and stiffness as a
result of the injuries to his neck and back, he did not lose range of motion
and he was able to return to his physical and recreational activities
relatively quickly after the accident.  His injuries did not incapacitate him
from working, but he did experience discomfort while working.  He continued to
have some mild, intermittent symptoms at time of trial.

[53]        
I award the plaintiff $25,000 for non-pecuniary damages.

SPECIAL DAMAGES

[54]        
Mr. Boutin chose to attend physiotherapy, chiropractic therapy and
massage therapy.  Although his doctor agreed with his decision to take
advantage of these types of treatment, it cannot really be said that there is
medical evidence that these therapies were medically necessary.  I noted that
there is a dearth of evidence about the effectiveness of any of the various
kinds of therapy in resolving the injuries; or alleviating the symptoms Mr.
Boutin was experiencing.   I consider it reasonable to award the cost of
therapy for a period of one year following the accident, but not beyond. 
Counsel for Mr. Boutin calculated a cost to Mr. Boutin of treatments in 2009,
less the treatments he would probably have had even if he had not been injured,
at $2,645.  Adjusting this upward by one-twelfth for the month of January,
2010, and rounding the figure to the nearest $1,000, I award the sum of $3,000
for special damages.

COST OF FUTURE CARE

[55]        
I am not persuaded that Mr. Boutin will require any further treatment
for the accident injuries and I make no award for the cost of future care.

COSTS

[56]        
I am not aware of any reason that Mr. Boutin should not have his costs
at Scale B.   If there are matters relevant to costs that have not been brought
to my attention, such as offers of settlement, the parties have leave to file
written submissions about costs.  The submissions, if any, should be filed no
later than January 31, 2013.  Otherwise, Mr. Boutin shall have his costs, to be
assessed at Scale B.

“Baker J.”