Coquitlam ICBC Lawyer: $65,000 for Loss of Housekeeping
In one of my trials - Bhatti v Jones, 2020 BCSC 1935 - I won my client one of the largest loss of housekeeping (and childcare abilities) awards in BC history obtaining my client $225,000.
At trial, Vic S. Maan won his client $225,000 for his past and future loss of housekeeping capabilities: one of the largest awards in BC history.
But what is loss of housekeeping? In the recent case of Tolentino v Nair, 2021 BCSC 825 (“Tolentino”), Mr. Justice A. Saunders explains loss of domestic abilities as follows:
It is of course well-settled law that a plaintiff may be compensated for loss, either whole or in part, of the ability to perform housekeeping services. The award may be in the form of pecuniary damages, particularly where there has been a true loss of capacity; a loss that is more akin to a loss of amenities may be accounted for in the non-pecuniary damages award: see Kim v. Lin, 2018 BCCA 77 at para. 33 [Kim]; Riley v. Ritsco, 2018 BCCA 366. The latter alternative, of compensating this loss under the non-pecuniary head of damages, may also be appropriate when there is a lack of evidence with respect to the replacement cost of household services: Eaton v. Regan, 2005 BCSC 3 at para. 46. It is within the discretion of the trial judge whether to address this loss as part of the non-pecuniary damages award, or as a segregated pecuniary head of damage: Kim at para. 33.
In lay language, Justice Saunders explains that if you are required to hire on a cleaning company (for example) due to the injuries you suffered in a car accident, then you may claim for the cost for the services already rendered and the estimated costs you will reasonably incurr in the future until a certain age (pecuniary loss). Alternatively, should you not hire on services, you are also legally permitted to make a claim for losing the ability to take care of your home (non-pecuniary loss); essentially, if a back injury disables you from lifting heavy objects, or using your back at 45 degree angle (like many of us do when vacuuming or mopping), then you may claim for that loss of capacity. In Tolentino, Justice Saunders awarded the plaintiff $65,000 despite raising issues about the injured claimant’s expert.
Other large loss of housekeeping awards in ICBC car accident cases include: $570,000 in Xu v Balaski, 2020 BCSC 940; $418,000 in Kim v. Lin, 2016 BCSC 2405 (aff'd in Kim v. Lin, 2018 BCCA 77); $225,000 in my Bhatti trial; $180,000 in Shongu v. Jing, 2016 BCSC 901; Harrington v. Sangha, 2011 BCSC 1035 ($194,000); Broomfield v. Lof, 2019 BCSC 1155 ($113,000); Tench v. Van Bugnum, 2019 BCSC 1877 ($100,000); Jantzi v Moore, 2020 BCSC 1489 ($90,000); and Lo v. Hughes, 2020 BCSC 840 (approx. $80,000).
Justice Saunders also discusses the following re late expert opinions:
[75] This was new [expert] opinion. Defence counsel sought leave to conduct further cross-examination, clarifying the new evidence, but did not resile from his objection. Ms. Flores confirmed that she had duplicated meal preparation under both 4.1 and 4.2, but had not included the special rate for meal preparation, or the number of hours that meal preparation would take.
[76] In Perry v. Vargas, 2012 BCSC 1537, at para. 22, Mr. Justice Savage formulated a test for the exercise of the court’s residual discretion to admit expert reports served late under Rule 11-7(6)(c) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, B.C. Reg. 168/2009 [SCCR]: There must be, in order not to undermine the purpose of the Rule,
… some compelling analysis of why the interests of justice require in [this] particular case the extraordinary step of abrogating the other requirements of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.