What is the test for a plaintiff to be awarded head of damages in her motor vehicle accident case?

The principles which the court must apply in respect of this head of damages has been outlined in several cases. The principles were reviewed by Madam Justice Brown in Ruffle v. Canada (Correctional Services), 2007 BCSC 1264 at paras. 58 to 61. The principles of that case can be distilled as follows: 1. While past wage loss must be proven on a balance of probability, future loss requires the court to be satisfied that there is a real possibility of loss. 2. Some of the considerations to be taken into account in assessing the loss include whether the plaintiff has been rendered less capable overall from earning income from all types of employment whether the plaintiff is less marketable or attractive as an employee to potential employers; whether the plaintiff has lost the ability to take advantage of all job opportunities which otherwise may have been open had the plaintiff not been injured; and is the plaintiff less valuable to him or herself as a person capable of earning income in a competitive labour market. 3. The most basic principle is that the plaintiff is entitled to be put in the position she would have been in but for the accident, insofar as an amount of money can accomplish that. The award recognizes that the plaintiff’s capacity to earn income is an asset which has been taken away. It is not projected future earnings that are compensated but the loss or impairment of earning capacity as a capital asset. 4. The court must address the unknowable and consider all possibilities and probabilities chances opportunities and risks, and assess the weight of each in determining the award. 5. The trial judge must assess the loss, not calculate them according to some mathematical formula. The award must be fair and reasonable taking into account all relevant evidence.

In Sinnott v. Boggs, 2007 BCCA 267, the court considered the future loss of earning capacity of a plaintiff who was a teenager in high school when she was injured in a motor vehicle accident. The court commented that because the plaintiff was a young person who had not established a career or a settled pattern of employment the quantification of the loss is more at large: at para. 16.