What are the relevant factors for assessing non-pecuniary damages in a motor vehicle accident?

Some of the relevant factors in assessing non-pecuniary damages include: a) Age of plaintiff; b) Nature of the injury; c) Severity and duration of the pain; d) Disability; e) Emotional suffering; f) Loss or impairment of life; g) Impairment of family, marital, and social relationships; h) Impairment of physical and mental abilities; i) Loss of lifestyle; and j) The plaintiff’s stoicism (as a factor that should not penalize the plaintiff). Stapley v. Hejslet, 2006 BCCA 34 at para. 46.

Once the plaintiff establishes causation, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that the plaintiff failed to mitigate some of her loss or injury. If a plaintiff has not pursued a recommended course of medical treatment, the defendant must prove that the plaintiff acted unreasonably in declining the medical treatment and must prove the extent, if any, by which the plaintiff’s damages would have been reduced had she pursued that treatment: Chiu v. Chiu, 2002 BCCA 618 at para. 57.

The question of whether a person has been reasonable in refusing recommended treatment is one for the trier of fact to decide based on the circumstances of the case, taking into account the degree of risk from the treatment, the gravity of the consequences for refusing it, and the potential benefit to be derived from it: Janiak v. Ippolito, 1985 CanLII 62 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 146.