IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Date: 20140411

Docket: M145410

Registry:
New Westminster

Between:

Ramneek Kaur
Randhawa

Plaintiff

And

Randolph Chiang

Defendant

Before:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Joyce

Reasons for Judgment

Introduction and Statement of Issues

[1]            
On October 23, 2010, the plaintiff was driving her car eastbound on
Kingsway Avenue in Burnaby, British Columbia, when she was rear-ended by a car
being driven by the defendant.

[2]            
The defendant admits that his negligence caused the collision. He also
admits that the plaintiff suffered soft-tissue injuries in the accident.

[3]            
The issues in this action are the nature and extent of the injuries
suffered by the plaintiff as a result of this collision and their impact on
her, to the date of trial and beyond.

[4]            
The plaintiff’s position is that the collision caused injuries to her
neck, shoulders, and back, as well as sleep disturbance and anxiety while
driving. The plaintiff alleges that she continues to suffer back pack that
interferes with her daily activities and will continue to do so for the
foreseeable future. She claims non-pecuniary damages, past wage loss, and special
damages. She also claims damages for future income loss or loss of capacity and
damages for the cost of future care.

[5]            
The defendant’s position is that the plaintiff’s soft-tissue injuries
resolved and that any ongoing symptoms are due to subsequent events unrelated
to the motor vehicle accident. He agrees with the past wage loss claim of the
plaintiff in the amount of $698.00, but disputes the quantum of non-pecuniary
damages, as well as her claim for special damages, future income loss and cost
of future care.

[6]            
The issues to be decided are therefore:

(a)      the quantum of
non-pecuniary damages;

(b)      the amount of special
damages;

(c)      whether
the plaintiff is entitled to damages for future income loss or loss of
capacity; and

(d)      whether
the plaintiff is entitled to damages for the cost of future care and, if so, to
what extent.

Background Facts

[7]            
Ms. Randhawa is currently 28 years old. She is married with no
children.

[8]            
On October 23, 2010, Ms. Randhawa was driving her Toyota Camry
automobile Eastbound on Kingsway Avenue in Burnaby, headed toward the Real Canadian
Superstore, located in the Metrotown Shopping Centre, where she intended to
meet her then fiancé to do some grocery shopping. She was driving in the right
hand lane of two driving lanes on Kingsway, when her car was struck from behind
by a Toyota Corolla being driven by the defendant. Ms. Randhawa and the defendant
had been stopped at a traffic light prior to the collision and had resumed
driving when Ms. Randhawa came to a stop because traffic in front of her
had stopped.

[9]            
The defendant estimated that he had reached a speed of between 20 and 30
kilometres per hour (“km/h”) before he saw that the car in front of him had
come to a stop. He applied the brakes, but his car slid into the plaintiff’s
car.

[10]        
Ms. Randhawa heard a noise that she described as “screeching” and
looked in her rear view mirror before the accident happened.

[11]        
Ms. Randhawa was wearing a lap and shoulder seat-belt restraint,
which she felt “lock-up”.

[12]        
The impact caused the defendant to lurch forward, but he was not injured
as a result of the impact.

[13]        
The damage to both Ms. Randhawa’s car and the defendant’s car was
minimal.

Analysis

Effect of accident on plaintiff and non-pecuniary damages

[14]        
Ms. Randhawa felt shaken immediately following the accident and
felt pain in her shoulders. Ms. Randhawa continued on to the store, but
said that she felt shaken up and did not do all the shopping that she had
planned. That evening, she felt soreness in her upper and lower back. The next
morning, her back felt worse. She had pain in her upper back near her shoulder
blades.

[15]        
Four days after the accident, Ms. Randhawa attended at the office
of her family doctor, Dr. S. Jetha, where she saw Dr. Jetha’s locum,
who prescribed Naproxen and massage therapy.

[16]        
 Ms. Randhawa first attended massage therapy on November 1, 2010,
at East Vancouver Therapeutic Massage. She attended regularly until early
December 2010 and then from the end of August 2011, at a reduced frequency. Her
most recent visit prior to the trial was on December 30, 2013. Ms. Randhawa
attended a total of 60 massage treatments up to the date of trial.

[17]        
Ms. Randhawa also received chiropractic treatments from Dr. N.
Dosanjh, on the advice of Dr. Jetha. She received regular chiropractic
treatments from January 14, 2011 until the middle of August of 2011. She
resumed treatments in early January 2012, and attended one to two treatments
per month until March 2013. She has had three chiropractic treatments since
that time. Ms. Randhawa has received 55 chiropractic treatments in total,
the most recent being September 20, 2013.

[18]        
On the advice of Dr. Jetha, Ms. Randhawa engaged the services
of a personal trainer in August of 2011, and attended a total of 5.5 sessions.

[19]        
Additionally, Ms. Randhawa attended for active rehabilitation
therapy at KARP Rehabilitation, also on Dr. Jetha’s recommendation. She
was assessed on June 21, 2013, and attended eight therapy sessions from July 19
through August 15, followed by a further four sessions from September 11
through October 2, 2013.

[20]        
Ms. Randhawa has continued to perform exercises as recommended by
her therapists and personal trainer, twice daily. Those exercises include
bringing her legs up to her chest in order to stretch out her lower back and
using a large "yoga ball".

[21]        
Ms. Randhawa testified that the massage, chiropractic treatments
and sessions with the personal trainer give her temporary relief from her
symptoms of back pain and headaches, but her symptoms have not completely
resolved. She testified that she continues to experience neck, back and
shoulder pain, as well as anxiety while driving a car. Standing for too long
irritates her back, as does sitting for prolonged periods of time. Lifting or
carrying heavy objects, bending and twisting all tend to aggravate her
symptoms.

[22]        
 Ms. Randhawa testified that when her back is irritated performing
the stretching exercises she was taught helps relieve the pain. She takes
non-prescription pain medication (Advil) for her back pain as required, and
also ices her back at least once every two days to relieve her symptoms. Ms. Randhawa
occasionally has chiropractic and massage treatments to relieve her back pain.

[23]        
Ms. Randhawa testified that before the accident she had a very
active life, free of pain. She was active with family and friends. She enjoyed
sporting activities, including playing “pick-up” soccer, badminton, and
throwing a Frisbee. Ms. Randhawa enjoyed social events, especially large
East Indian weddings where she enjoyed dancing until late in the evening. Ms. Randhawa
lived with her parents and sister in a large house where she did household
chores, including cooking, vacuuming and doing laundry.

[24]        
Ms. Randhawa was married in July 2013, and now lives with her
husband in the basement level of his parents’ home, where her three
sisters-in-law also live. She is not responsible for any of the chores in the
home outside of the basement where she and her husband live.

[25]        
Ms. Randhawa testified that her injuries have curtailed her social
life. She finds it difficult attending the long wedding ceremonies and
celebrations that she used to enjoy. She finds it difficult to sit for long
periods of time at movies. She finds sitting in a plane on long flights
exacerbates her back pain. She is not able to be as physically active as she
was before the accident. She finds it more difficult to perform household
chores and calls on her husband to help out with those tasks.

[26]        
Ms. Randhawa testified that she has some difficulty sleeping since
the accident. She tends to toss and turn and needs to sleep with a pillow
between her legs.

[27]        
At the time of the accident, Ms. Randhawa worked part-time in a
doctor’s office and was going to school full-time to obtain a certificate as a
special education teacher assistant. After the accident, Ms. Randhawa
carried on with her education and qualified in that field.

[28]        
Ms. Randhawa worked for a time on a casual on-call basis with the
New Westminster School Board but since November 2013, she has been employed by
a private clinic where she works part-time, four days per week, with one
five-year-old autistic child. In addition to her work at the clinic, Ms. Randhawa
works after school on Tuesdays and Thursdays with two different special needs
children – one from 3:15 p.m. to 5:15 p.m. and the other from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30
p.m.

[29]        
The parties agree that, as a result of the accident, Ms. Randhawa
missed four shifts as an office assistant, as well as the ability to work as a
poll-worker for Elections BC during the May 2013 election.

[30]        
On November 19, 2010, Ms. Randhawa slipped when she was going up
some stairs in her home and she landed on her hands and knees. Ms. Randhawa
said this fall irritated her back for a day or two and it then returned to the way
it had been before her slip and fall.

[31]        
Ms. Randhawa had another slip and fall in December 2012, which she
said did not aggravate her symptoms.

[32]        
Ms. Randhawa’s husband confirmed that his wife’s activity level has
been adversely affected by the injuries she sustained in the accident in the
ways described by Ms. Randhawa. He also testified that she is moodier now
than she was before the accident and does not enjoy going out socially as much
as she used to.

[33]        
In her report dated July 8, 2013, Dr. Jetha noted that she and her
locum had seen Ms. Randhawa a total of 16 times since the accident, with
the most recent visit being December 5, 2012. Dr. Jetha ordered x-rays of Ms. Randhawa’s
lumbar spine and sacroiliac joints, as well as her sacrum and coccyx, which failed
to show any abnormalities. Dr. Jetha did not believe it was necessary to
refer Ms. Randhawa to any specialist physicians for investigation,
although she recommended that Ms. Randhawa see a psychologist for
cognitive behavioural therapy to decrease her anxiety while driving.

[34]        
In the summary portion of her report, Dr. Jetha stated:

In summary, this patient as a result of the MVA of October 23^rd,
2010 has sustained the following injuries:

1.)        Neck strain and upper
back strain. These have resolved.

2.)        Low back strain with sacral
iliac joint strain. She continues to have residual pain and burning in her
right SI joint. She had a prolonged treatment with various modalities of manual
therapy program (massage, chiropractor, personal trainer). It may be that as a
result of the feedback of the accident her sacral iliac joints appear to have
an imbalance. Prolonged sitting or prolonged standing also gives her spasm of
her paraspinal muscles and ligaments. Despite all this treatment she still
appears to have pain in her sacral iliac joints. She has been encouraged to
continue with the exercise program of stretching and strengthening of her low
back and neck. I have referred this patient to an active rehabilitation program
(KARP). This will hopefully improve her pain and increase her core muscles.

[35]        
In cross-examination based on her clinical notes, Dr. Jetha agreed
that it was her opinion, in July 2012, that Ms. Randhawa’s back pain was
getting better. She also agreed that Ms. Randhawa came to see her on
December 5, 2012, the day on which Ms. Randhawa had a fall. On that date,
she noted that Ms. Randhawa complained of a recurrence of right low back
pain. Dr. Jetha testified that her note could mean recurrence or re-exacerbation.

[36]        
When asked what she meant in her report by the statement, “It may be
that as a result of the feedback of the accident her sacral iliac joints appear
to have an imbalance”, Dr. Jetha explained that based on the subjective
complaints she concluded that there may have been a muscle injury at one of her
sacroiliac joint as a result of twisting motion caused by the accident, which
caused her to favour the other sacroiliac joint, resulting in pain. She did not
send Ms. Randhawa for an MRI. There were no neurological signs or evidence
of injury to the bone, so Dr. Jetha was hopeful that with manual therapy
the problem with the joint would resolve. She agreed that there was no reason
for her to believe that the injury would not resolve.

[37]        
The discharge report from KARP Rehabilitation, dated January 6, 2014,
confirms that Ms. Randhawa attended a total of 12 sessions of therapy when
she worked on improving her posture and core musculature. The discharge report
concludes:

Ms. Randhawa has attended eight of her initially
recommended rehabilitation sessions and four follow-up sessions with no late
cancellations. Over the course of the program, Ms. Randhawa displayed
improved scapular and trunk stability, core strength and stability, and hip
rotational stability.

At this time, it is recommended Ms. Randhawa
be discharged from our program, due to inability to schedule a final assessment
and her ability to continue performing her prescribed exercise routine
independently.

[38]        
Ms. Randhawa was assessed by Mr. P. Towsley, an occupational
therapist, on November 8, 2013. Mr. Towsley’s report included the following
opinions:

Ms. Randhawa presented with a history of residual
symptoms including constant low back and sacroiliac pain with tightness and
aching in her upper trapezius muscles along with intermittent headaches during
the assessment related to a motor vehicle accident on October 23, 2010.
Functional testing results, findings of the musculoskeletal assessment,
demonstrated movement patterns, pain mannerisms and performance when distracted
support Ms. Randhawa’s symptom reports. Physical effort during testing was
determined to be high and pain and disability reports were reliable.

Demonstrated functional limitations included a reduced
capacity for sustained neck flexion, prolonged moderate or severe level
stooping, kneeling with concurrent trunk flexion and prolonged overhead
reaching and handling.

Ms. Randhawa continues to employ rehabilitation measures
such as massage therapy in an attempt to better manage symptom increase. Although
symptom management with these endeavors is reportedly temporary and partial, it
appears to be the best option available at present. Symptom flare-ups, that
will most likely occur when Ms. Randhawa is working full-time as a special
education assistant or when she increases the physical demands of her exercise
program will most likely require some form of therapy to assist with management
of some to reactivity. An allotment of eight to 10 therapy sessions per year
would be reasonable, in my opinion, to assist Ms. Randhawa with symptom
flareups.

I am of the opinion that Ms. Randhawa
presently possesses the functional capacity to perform all of her own personal
care, housekeeping and meal preparation tasks.

[39]        
In summary, upon a consideration of the totality of the evidence, I find
that as a result of the accident, Ms. Randhawa sustained soft tissue
injuries to her neck, shoulders, upper back and lower back. Her injuries have interfered
with her ability to perform a number of household tasks, as well as her ability
to engage in the physical activities that she enjoyed prior to the accident.
They also make it more difficult to participate in social events.

[40]        
I find that the injuries to Ms. Randhawa’s upper back and neck have
resolved. However, Ms. Randhawa continues to experience pain in her low
back and sacroiliac region, which continues to interfere with a number of her
activities as she described.

[41]        
Ms. Randhawa has been able to moderate the effect of her back pain
by maintaining good core muscle strength. She is able to gain relief from her pain
by employing the stretching exercises that she has been taught; and, when
necessary, by the occasional chiropractic or massage treatment.

[42]        
I accept Ms. Randhawa’s evidence that the two slip and fall
incidents temporarily aggravated the low back injury that she sustained in the
car accident and that her ongoing episodic symptoms are caused by the accident
and not the slip and fall incidents.

[43]        
There is no evidence that Ms. Randhawa has sought out treatment
from her physician for her back pain since December 2012, but she has received
occasional chiropractic and massage treatments.

[44]        
Based on the evidence of Dr. Jetha, I would expect that if she
maintains her exercise regime, Ms. Randhawa should continue to experience
a lessening of the back pain symptoms over time. However, I accept that they
continue to date, some 39 months after the accident, although not as frequently
or as severely as they used to be.

[45]        
I also expect that over time, Ms. Randhawa will experience less
anxiety driving her car. The fact that she did not take up Dr. Jetha’s
suggestion that she seek out psychotherapy leads me to believe that her anxiety
about driving is no longer a serious impediment to her daily functioning.

[46]        
The accident did not affect Ms. Randhawa’s ability to complete her
educational training. She has been working at her chosen career. The fact that
she is not working full time as a special education teacher assistant is due to
lack of opportunity, not physical inability. Since completing her training, she
has not had to decline any shifts due to health reasons.

[47]        
The defendant disputes the severity of Ms. Randhawa’s injuries,
based in part on the lack of structural damage to the two cars. However, the
defendant admitted that he was likely travelling between 20 and 30 km/h, when
he braked and slid into Ms. Randhawa’s car. He also admitted that he
lurched forward on impact. This was more than a mere tap.

[48]        
Counsel for Ms. Randhawa submits that the appropriate range of
non-pecuniary damages is $40,000 to $50,000. He refers to the following cases: Jackman
v. All Season Labour Supplies Ltd., 2006 BCSC 2053 [Jackman]
($40,000); Edmondson v. Payer, 2011 BCSC 118 [Edmondson]
($40,000); Atker v. Nair, 2011 BCSC 1877 [Atker] ($45,000); Hamilton
v. Vance, 2007 BCSC 1001 [Hamilton] ($38,000); and Christoffersen
v. Howarth, 2013 BCSC 144 [Christoffersen] ($35,000).

[49]        
In Jackman, the plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries to her
back that restricted most aspects of her life for about one year and was
disabling for the first five months of that period. Residual symptoms remained
more than three years after the accident and were expected to continue for at
least the next few months.

[50]        
In Edmondson, the plaintiff sustained soft-tissue injuries to her
neck, which did not cause a significant disability. The plaintiff was able to
continue working and remain physically active after the accident. She had
recurrent pain and stiffness that was frequent and significant enough to make
her life less comfortable and enjoyable.

[51]        
In Atker, the plaintiff suffered soft tissue injures to her neck,
shoulder, back and left hip, resulting in chronic pain. For the first two to
three months after the accident, she was in quite acute pain. The plaintiff,
who was on maternity leave at the time of the accident, tried returning to work
about nine months after the accident, but was unable to tolerate the pain. She
was able to return to work full-time about 16 months after the accident with
intermittent brief absences due to flare-ups of neck and shoulder pain. The
evidence suggested that the plaintiff would have occasional flare-ups in the
future.

[52]        
In Hamilton, the plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries to her
neck, head, shoulder and lower back. She was incapacitated for two months after
the accident and unable to carry on any of her normal activities, including
work. For the first year after the accident, she was in considerable pain. Her
symptoms lessened in the second year after the accident, but did not subside
entirely. The trial judge found that the plaintiff would always have some
degree of neck pain, which she described as a small, permanent disability.

[53]        
In Christoffersen, the plaintiff suffered soft tissue injuries
that caused pain in her neck, shoulder and back, as well as headaches. After
the accident, the plaintiff continued to work and maintain an active lifestyle,
although her injuries continued to cause her pain in all aspects of her life.
Her prognosis for full recovery was good.

[54]        
Counsel for the defendant submits that Ms. Randhawa’s injuries were
minor in nature and had resolved by December 2012. She submits that any ongoing
symptoms are unrelated to the accident. She submits, therefore, that the
appropriate range of damages for non-pecuniary loss is between $20,000 and
$25,000. The defendant referred to the following cases: Wallner v. Uppal,
2012 BCSC 1602 [Wallner] ($20,000); Williamson v. Nakashimada,
2004 BCSC 1348 [Williamson] ($20,000); and McCulloch v. Isaac,
2013 BCSC 1319 [McCulloch] ($25,000).

[55]        
In Wallner, the plaintiff did not miss any time from work, had
very few medical visits and had only seven physiotherapy treatments. There were
no objective signs of injury. The injuries had minimal impact on her life.

[56]        
In Williamson, the plaintiff complained of pain as a result of
soft-tissue injuries, as well as headaches. He admitted that he had a long
history of headaches and back pain prior to the accident, for which he had
sought chiropractic treatments and massage therapy.

[57]        
In McCulloch, the plaintiff complained of neck and low back pain
as a result of a minor injury. However, she had significant degenerative
disease in her low back prior to the accident. The trial judge found that the
plaintiff would have had low back symptoms even if she had not been in the accident,
but was unable to estimate the duration of the symptoms that were caused by the
accident.

[58]        
I do not accept the defendant’s submission that Ms. Randhawa’s
ongoing symptoms are not caused by the accident. Further, I disagree that they
were minor in nature; and, more importantly, I disagree that they had minimal
impact on Ms. Randhawa’s enjoyment of life. Her injuries did not, however,
interrupt her studies and have not caused her to miss any work.

[59]        
It is well accepted that the determination of damages is a very
fact-specific exercise. That said, the cases referred to by the plaintiff are,
in my view, much more representative of the injuries suffered by Ms. Randhawa
and the impact that those injuries have had on her life, than are the cases
referred to by the defendant.

[60]        
I conclude that Ms. Randhawa is entitled to an award of
non-pecuniary damages in the amount of $40,000.00.

Past loss of income

[61]        
The parties are agreed that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of
$698.00 for pain income loss.

Special Damages

[62]        
Ms. Randhawa claims special damages in the total amount of
$3,112.49, comprised of the following:

[63]        
The massage and chiropractic treatments were recommended by Ms. Randhawa’s
physician. They were reasonably incurred as a result of this accident. Dr. Jetha
recommended two sessions with a personal trainer, whereas Ms. Randhawa had
five and one-half sessions. I am satisfied, however that the sessions were
reasonable incurred in order to provide Ms. Randhawa with the exercise
techniques that she needs to use to deal with her ongoing complaints and I
decline to reduce the amount of the claim as suggested by the defendant.

[64]        
Special damages are therefore allowed at $3,112.49.

Cost of Future Care

[65]        
I am satisfied that Ms. Randhawa still has periodic episodes of
increased back pain for which she would likely find relief by having massage
therapy, although as I have noted, based on the medical evidence, I expect that
her symptoms will continue to decrease over time. As noted above, Mr. Towsley
is of the view that massage therapy is appropriate to deal with symptom
flare-ups.

[66]        
The cost of each massage session is currently $50.00. I believe that an
award that will enable Ms. Randhawa to receive eight treatments per year
for the next five years is appropriate. I therefore award $2,000.00 under this
head of damage.

Loss of Capacity to Earn Income

[67]        
Ms. Randhawa submits that she continues to experience functional
limitations due to persistent low back and sacroiliac joint symptoms, which
render her less competitive in the labour market, less able to take advantage
of all job opportunities and less marketable or attractive to future employers.
She seeks an award of $30,000.00 for loss of income earning potential.

[68]        
In order to recover an award of damages under this head, the plaintiff
must first establish, on the basis of the evidence, that there is a real and
substantial possibility of a future event leading to an income loss. In Perren
v. Lalari, 2010 BCCA 140, Garson J.A. review the law in this area and
stated at para. 32:

[32]      A plaintiff must always
prove, as was noted by Donald J.A. in Steward [Steward v. Berezan,
2007, BCCA 150], by Bauman J. in Chang [Chang v. Feng, 2008 BCCA
49], and by Tysoe J.A. in Romanchych [ Romanchych v. Vallianatos,
2010 BCCA 20], that there is a real and substantial possibility of a future
event leading to an income loss. If the plaintiff discharges that burden of
proof, then depending upon the facts of the case, the plaintiff may prove the
quantification of that loss of earning capacity, either on an earnings
approach, as in Steenblok [Steenblok v. Funk (1990, 46 B.C.L.R.
(2d) 133 (C.A.)] or a capital asset approach, as in Brown [Brown v.
Golaiy (1985), 26 B.C.L.R. (3D) 353 (S.C.)] The former approach will be
more useful when the loss is more easily measurable, as it was in Steenblok.
The latter approach will be more useful when the loss is not as easily
measurable, as in Pallos [Pallos v. Insurance Corp. of British
Columbia (1995), 100 B.C.L.R. (2d) 260 (C.A.)] and Romanchych. A
plaintiff may indeed be able to prove that there is a substantial possibility
of a future loss of income despite having returned to his or her usual
employment. That was the case in both Pallos and Parypa [Parypa
v. Wickware, 1999 BCCA 88]. But, as Donald J.A. said in Steward, an
inability to perform an occupation that is not a realistic alternative
occupation is not proof of a future loss.

[69]        
Ms. Randhawa relies in particular on the evidence of Mr. Towsley
in this regard. Mr. Towsley stated that the National Occupational
Classification (NOC) for work as a Special Educational Assistant requires a
light strength load. Body position requirements include sitting, standing and
walking. The Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) indicates that the job
requires light strength capacity. Mr. Towsley opined, however, that based
on his own person experience from working in schools as an occupation
therapist, the job of a special educational assistant can right greater than
light strength at times depending on the child being assisted. He went on to
state:

Ms. Randhawa has worked as a
special education assistant since her accident and plans to work full time if
she is able to find such a position. This indicates that she has the capacity
at present to work as an SEA and still plans to move forward with her career
choice should she be able to locate full-time employment. My concern at present
for Ms. Randhawa would be related to her ability to perform the
potentially more physically demanding aspects of the job including assisting
more physically involved children with mobile and transfers and/or ensuring a
child’s safety at school and in the community. … Ms. Randhawa’s strength
limitations, issues with balance and symptom increases related to sustained
stooping during testing could all interfere with her capacity to perform the heavier
aspects of the educational assistant job as outlined above. Therefore the
limitations that she demonstrated during testing may interfere with her ability
to advance through various positions but could also put both herself and those
under her care at risk. This is not to say that she does not have the capacity
to work as a special education assistant at present but simply points out that
she may not have the capacity to perform all aspects of the job. Therefore,
special consideration will have to be made related to her limitations when Ms. Randhawa
is applying for a particular job in her chosen field.

[70]        
Mr. Towsley confirmed that Ms. Randhawa currently meets the
job requirements for her present occupation as a special educational assistant.

[71]        
No medical reason has been put forward to expect that Ms. Randhawa’s
condition will not improve. In fact, Dr. Jetha appeared to agree when that
proposition was put to her by defence counsel.

[72]        
Ms. Randhawa is in fact currently working in her chosen profession.

[73]        
Mr. Towsley’s testing indicated that Ms. Randhawa is capable
of lifting 20 pounds, pushing 45 pounds and pulling 64 pounds. In her present
position, Ms. Randhawa is working with a child who she believes weighs
approximately 70 pounds and has been able to perform her job as required
without having to ask for help or accommodation.

[74]        
Ms. Randhawa may continue to have episodes of increased discomfort
for which she will seek massage therapy, outside of her work hours just as many
workers have to seek medical treatments for various ailments. That does not
mean that she will lose an opportunity to earn income in the future.

[75]        
In short, the evidence does not persuade me that Ms. Randhawa has
established a real and substantial possibility of a future income loss as a
result of this accident. Her claim under this head is dismissed.

Judgment

[76]        
The plaintiff is entitled to judgment in the amount of $45,810.49,
broken down as follows:

Costs

[77]        
Unless there are any relevant matters of which I am not aware, the
plaintiff is entitled to her costs in accordance with Rule 15-1(15)(c) plus
disbursements.

“B.M.
Joyce J.”