What is the range of damages for failure to mitigate?

The defence counsel suggested, referencing Davis v. Shields, 2010 NSSC 80, where the court reduced damages by 50% for failure to mitigate, that a similar reduction should take place in the present instance. However, in Davis v. Shields, supra, Justice Haliburton found the plaintiff had rejected any consideration of the psychological counselling, that had been recommended, “out of hand.” At para. 90 he observed: Here, two experts in rehabilitative medicine gave virtually identical testimony that it is statistically established that individuals suffering whiplash injuries of the type suffered by the plaintiff can be expected to entirely or almost entirely recover over a relatively short period of time. Where the symptoms have persisted for a period of time and the patient has developed what they have referred to as the “whiplash syndrome”, the rehabilitative period is extended and demands a psychological or psychiatric treatment component in order to be effective.