Case Summary: Matwijec v. Goodridge

The British Columbia Supreme Court recently provided its decision in the case of Matwijec v. Goodridge, 2024 BCSC 2030. The Court awarded the plaintiff over $1M in damages. Nathaniel Hartney and Evan Lay of Preszler Law were the lawyers representing the plaintiff in this case.

Case Summary

The motor vehicle accident took place in January 2019. The plaintiff was driving his vehicle northbound when his vehicle was t-boned by the defendant’s vehicle in Surrey, British Columbia. The plaintiff’s vehicle was a total loss. ICBC admitted liability and that the plaintiff was injured in the accident. The issue is the quantum of damages.

The plaintiff was 49 years old at the time of the accident and worked as a labourer at a concrete restoration company. His work was physically demanding. He attempted to return to modified duties as a labourer. However, he was unable to continue working due to the injuries suffered in the accident. The plaintiff suffered numerous injuries to his back, shoulder, as well as psychological issues. The plaintiff was unable to be employed as a labourer or otherwise for the next 11 years until his retirement.

During trial, ICBC tried every tactic to ensure that the plaintiff received minimal compensation and tried to question every aspect of the plaintiff’s claim. However, this was to no avail.

First, ICBC claimed that the plaintiff had pre-existing back, shoulder, and psychological issues.

Second, ICBC claimed the plaintiff failed to mitigate his injuries and did not follow the medical recommendations and did not pursue more sedentary work.

Finally, ICBC claimed that the plaintiff could return to work after shoulder surgeries or he could work in a sedentary capacity as a cashier, security person, driver or building manager.

In the end the Court sided with the plaintiff on every contested issue and acknowledged the serious impact the accident had on his life.

Mr. Hartney and Mr. Lay worked diligently leading up to trial and displayed excellent understanding of the law and strategic prowess during trial.The Court ultimately awarded the plaintiff a total of $1,004,685.25.

Court Decision

In his reasons, Justice Hamilton provides the following:

[241] I conclude that the plaintiff ought to receive $235,000 in non-pecuniary damages considering the relevant factors including his age, level of pain, duration of pain, level of physical restrictions, emotional injuries and level of impairment to his life and lifestyle.

…

[252] I award the plaintiff $215,000 ($217,905, rounded) for his past income loss.

[253] $215,000 is the “gross” number. The parties need to agree on the appropriate amount of income tax to be deducted and post-trial deductions to be made in accordance s. 83 of the Insurance Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 231 for employment insurance, ICBC TTD payments, and CPP Disability payments. If the parties are unable to agree, they can return to court.

…

[286 to 289] I accept the plaintiff’s submission that due to being in his fifties and having a well-established career path as a labourer, a 10% negative general contingency is appropriate. I decline to reduce the award further because there are positive contingencies that need to be considered. Not only is there a possibility of hirer wages but the evidence is that both the concrete restoration companies are already paying 30% more for the plaintiff’s roles than the $27 per hour that the plaintiff received and that I have been invited by both parties to use in assessing damages. Additionally, the plaintiff has always enjoyed working and may well have worked until he was 70 years old or even longer but for the accident. Using a 10% negative general contingency, the future loss of earnings is calculated as follows:

$565,592.98 x 0.9 = $509,033.68, rounded to $500,000.

I award the plaintiff $500,000 for future loss of income earning capacity.

…

[298] Here the plaintiff claims 10 hours per month at $20 per hour or $2,400 per year for five and a half years from the date of the accident to trial, which I find reasonable. As such, I award the plaintiff $13,200 in past loss of housekeeping capacity.

…

[301] The plaintiff claims $2,400 per year for housekeeping for 20 years which totals $39,242 for future loss of housekeeping capacity. I find this reasonable on the evidence and award the plaintiff what he seeks under this category.

…

[307] In terms of the prescriptions claimed by the plaintiff, they were all prescribed by his family doctor for his pain and sleep issues after the Accident, he continues to take them as prescribed, and I find he will continue to do so in the future. This claim of the plaintiff is modest and reasonable. Therefore, the plaintiff will receive $2,243.25 for his costs of future care.

…

[323] I was not provided the breakdown of the four disputed items. As such, I will leave it to the parties to calculate the total of the special damages to counsel in accordance with my reasons.

[324] In summary, the plaintiff is entitled to the following in accordance with the reasons above:

a) Non-Pecuniary Damages $235,000

b) Past loss of future earning capacity $215,000 (gross)

c) Future loss of earning capacity $500,000 (gross)

d) Past loss of housekeeping capacity $13,200

e) Future loss of housekeeping capacity $39,242

f) Cost of future care $2,243.25

g) Special Damagesto be calculated

Total $1,004,685.25

Preszler lawyers continue to fight for our clients and put in the work required leading up to trial and during trial to ensure the best possible results.

This case is another successful win for our team and our deserving client. Congratulations to Nathaniel Hartney and Evan Lay for an excellent result!