Serving All of British Columbia Call 1-888-404-5167

Case Summary: Warren v. Biswal, 2023 BCSC 1318

The British Columbia Supreme Court recently provided its decision in the case of Warren v. Biswal, 2023 BCSC 1318. The Court granted our client $528,711. 05, another large win for managing partner Christopher McDougall.

This case involved a car accident that occurred on June 16, 2017. At the time of the accident, our client was 47 years old. She suffered a concussion, headaches, neck pain, shoulder pain, upper back pain, lower back pain, and right wrist pain. She also suffered from depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and cognitive symptoms.

The defence argued that the plaintiff did not suffer a concussion as a result of the accident. They argued that our client was unreliable because she overstated or contradicted her own evidence. We disagreed, as did our client.

Call 1-877-572-1324 to speak with our British Columbia legal intake team for free Book Free Consultation

The Court summarized some of the evidence as follows:

[19] At the time of the Accident in 2017, the plaintiff and her husband testified she was a fully functional full-time homemaker. She kept the family house very clean and did about 80% to 90% of the housework including cooking, laundry, daily vacuuming, sweeping, window washing, grocery shopping, and deep cleaning.

[20] The plaintiff took a very active role in raising her two children. She volunteered at their schools. Both children were active in sports and the plaintiff took them to their sporting activities almost all of the time and would stay and watch. In 2017 her youngest son was attending up to 11 sporting events a week including hockey, soccer, and rock climbing. The plaintiff attended almost all of these events.

[21] In 2014, after her youngest son undertook a school project about reptiles, the plaintiff began collecting snakes. By the time of the Accident she had 70 snakes, including pythons and boa constrictors. She testified that what began as a hobby turned into a business idea. She intended to breed snakes and sell them. She had  acquired equipment for this purpose, including an incubator for the eggs and special enclosures for baby snakes. She had not bred any snakes at the time of the Accident, but testified that she planned to start around the fall or winter of 2017/2018. She was increasing the number of snakes she had and cared for them diligently. She had a growing social media presence on Instagram revolving around her snakes. She had researched snakes and snake breeding.

The main point of contention became our client’s past and future loss of earning capacity, meaning the income she may have earned if she was not injured in the accident. Our client had not worked since 2003 or 2004, but the Court still fairly held that she had the earning capacity to do productive labour in a manner competitive with ordinary working-aged adults, especially as her children got older. The Court found that her prior work history and pre-accident functionality was consistent with her having the capacity to re-enter the paid workforce but for the accident.

The Court provided the following:

[134] The plaintiff’s position takes into consideration that she may not have entered into the workplace at all, or that she may have returned at a full-time level. I find that it is not very likely that the plaintiff would have entered the workforce at a full-time level, and that there is some likelihood that she would not have worked as many hours in a week as proposed. Further, the plaintiff has a prior history of depression and anxiety which I find created a low possibility of negative impact on her without-Accident future earning capacity. The plaintiff is also pre-disposed to more severe injury due to the exacerbation of her depression and anxiety from the Accident.

[135] As I have stated, the plaintiff retains a residual earning capacity, but I find that is limited. On a holistic basis, I assess the plaintiff’s past loss of earning capacity at $24,000 and her future loss of earnings capacity at $200,000.

The Court also provided the following awards to our client: $108,000 in non-pecuniary damages, $76, 208 in past loss of housekeeping capacity, $104, 045 in future loss of housekeeping capacity, $28,000 in cost of future care, and $3, 258. 05 in special damages.

This case is another example of ICBC pushing a matter to trial to their own detriment.

Congratulations to our deserving client for receiving fair compensation.

Connect With Our Legal Team

Schedule a call with our personal injury legal intake team. Our team is available 24/7 so call us now to book your call. Our scheduled intake allows you to tell us details about your accident and gives our legal team an opportunity to review your case and advise you on possible solutions and outcomes. The best part is, if you decide to hire us after this call - you don't pay anything unless we win. We can help clients regardless of where they reside in British Columbia so let us help you get started on your road to recovery.


1321 Blanshard Street
Suite 301,
Victoria, BC
V8W 0B6
Fax: 778-373-8213
Toll Free: 1-877-572-1324
4720 Kingsway
Suite 2600,
Burnaby, BC
V6E 3C9
Fax: 778-373-8213
Toll Free: 1-877-572-1324
5811 Cooney Road
Suite 305 South Tower,
Richmond, BC
V6X 3M1
Fax: 778-373-8213
Toll Free: 1-877-572-1324
7164 120th Street
Suite 202,
Surrey, BC
V3W 3M8
Fax: 778-373-8213
Toll Free: 1-877-572-1324
1631 Dickson Avenue
Suite 1100,
Kelowna, BC
V1Y 0B5
Fax: 778-373-8213
Toll Free: 1-877-572-1324
1075 West Georgia Street
Unit 825,
Vancouver, BC
V6E 3C9
Fax: 778-373-8213
Toll Free: 1-877-572-1324
*These are consultation offices that require a booked meeting in advance. Walk-ins are not allowed.

DISCLAIMER: Please be advised that the header image and other images throughout this website may include both lawyer and non-lawyer/paralegal employees of Preszler Injury Lawyers and unrelated third parties. Please note that the purpose of this disclaimer is to ensure that the usage of our spokesperson, John Fraser, or any other non-lawyer/paralegals in our legal marketing is not to be construed in any way as misleading to the public. Any questions regarding the usage of non-lawyers in our legal marketing or otherwise can be directed to management. Please also note that past results are not indicative of future results and that each case is unique and that case results listed on site are from experiences across Canada and are not specific to any province. Please be advised that some of the content on this website may be out of date. None of the content is intended to act as legal advice as each situation is independent and unique and requires individual legal advice from a licensed lawyer or paralegal. For legal advice on your individual situation – we can provide legal guidance after you have contacted our firm and we have established a lawyer-client relationship contractually. Please note that some of the content on this website may be out of date and no longer relevant after May 2021. For additional clarification on legal questions please contact our law firm and book a consultation with a member of our legal team.