What is the range of damages for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and non-pecuniary loss of income?

In all of the circumstances, I conclude that the plaintiff has suffered a considerable amount of compensable pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life up to the time of trial and that she will continue to experience some of these effects in the future. She must be fairly compensated for the substantial non-pecuniary loss that she has sustained and will continue to sustain, as a result of her neck injury. Counsel for the plaintiff cited Stapley v. Hejslet 2006 BCCA 34 at para. 46 which sets out a list of the factors that trial judges should consider when deciding the amount of an award for non-pecuniary damages. These factors have become well known and I need not repeat them.

With respect to one of the factors, the age of the plaintiff, counsel for the plaintiff suggested that elderly plaintiffs might have fewer years to live with pain and disability but that this interference with the limited time left to live could also be seen as being more serious (although not as long-lasting). I do not accept this as being an established principle in awarding damages. Moreover, the case cited in support by counsel for the plaintiff (Eton v. Loblaw Companies Ltd. 2010 BCSC 1865 at para. 66), appears to have involved a “substantial impairment” of the plaintiff. I have found that the injury sustained in the accident of September 3, 2010 has not left the plaintiff with any substantial impairment.