Only nominal future benefits may be deducted from a cost of care award in British Columbia in causing involving injuries suffered in car accidents.
The B.C. Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal for future care costs awarded to the plaintiff finding the trial judge's assessment reasonable. The Court also declined to interfere with a nominal deduction of $1,000 for possible statutory no-fault benefits payable to the plaintiff in the future.
Uhrovic v. Masjhuri [2008] B.C.J. No. 2191 British Columbia Court of Appeal C.A. Ryan, R.J. Bauman and H. Groberman JJ.A. November 17, 2008
The plaintiff respondent was injured in an automobile accident and was awarded $140,000 for future care costs. At trial, the appellant had sought a deduction of approximately $137,000 from the cost of future care award for possible future statutory benefits payable under section 83 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 231 (known as Part 7 benefits). The trial judge had awarded a nominal deduction of $1,000. The Appellant contended that the trial judge erred both in her assessment of future care costs and in her failure to make a meaningful deduction for future Part 7 benefits.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. On the issue of the appropriateness of the amount awarded for future care costs, the Court of Appeal held that such awards should be assessed and not calculated with mathematical precision. The reasonableness of the final compensation awarded is what is relevant. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge’s assessment of future care costs was reasonable in all the circumstances.
On the issue of the deductibility of potential future Part 7 benefits, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that the plaintiff respondent was unlikely to qualify for future Part 7 benefits, and that in any event, the relevant source of future benefits accords broad discretion to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to make payments or not as it sees fit. As a result, the trial judge’s nominal deduction for Part 7 benefits was reasonable.
This case was originally summarized by jhavelaar@harpergrey.com and originally edited by dpilley@harpergrey.com
