Background
Chantal Courchesne was riding in a taxi to Vancouver International Airport when a vehicle driven by Tsz Chau struck it from behind. Courchesne, then CEO of the Canadian Dermatology Association, was not wearing an available and functioning seatbelt. The accident caused a concussion or mild traumatic brain injury that produced lasting headaches, cognitive deficits, pain, fatigue, and other symptoms affecting her personal and professional life.
After a lengthy trial, the Supreme Court of British Columbia found Chau entirely responsible and awarded Courchesne approximately $3.75 million, including $520,000 for past income loss, $2.9 million for loss of future earning capacity, and $106,410 for future care. The defendants appealed the findings on contributory negligence, future earning capacity, and mitigation. Courchesne cross-appealed the awards for past and future earning capacity and future care.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal allowed the defendants’ appeal only as to the calculation of future earning capacity. The trial judge had accepted a $200,000 base salary but began the future-loss calculation with Courchesne’s projection based on a rejected $230,000 salary. Reassessing the award using the accepted salary, a 10% general contingency reduction, and the trial judge’s 10% allowance for residual earning capacity, the Court reduced the award from $2.9 million to $2.55 million.
The Court found that the trial judge erred in treating the possible effects of the seatbelt and headrest as mutually exclusive causes. The proper question was whether the failure to wear a seatbelt contributed to Courchesne’s injuries. Nevertheless, the defendants produced insufficient evidence to prove that wearing the seatbelt would have prevented or reduced her concussion or other injuries, so the contributory-negligence defence failed.
The Court rejected every other ground of appeal and dismissed Courchesne’s cross-appeal. It upheld the awards for past income loss and future care, the finding of 10% residual earning capacity, and the conclusion that the defendants had not proven a failure to mitigate. The defendants received the costs of the appeal and cross-appeal because they achieved substantial success.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff’s failure to wear an available seatbelt does not itself establish contributory negligence; the defendant must prove that the omission contributed to the injuries.
- A future-earning-capacity award cannot be calculated from factual assumptions that the trial judge expressly rejected.
- Appellate courts generally defer to a trial judge’s assessment and weighing of damages evidence unless a legal or palpable and overriding error is shown.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that seatbelt non-use requires evidence of causation, not merely proof that a functioning restraint was available. Even where the trial court applies causation incorrectly, the defence will fail if the evidentiary record does not show that wearing the seatbelt probably would have prevented or lessened the injuries.
It also illustrates the scrutiny applied to large future-income awards. Courts must carry their accepted factual findings consistently through the damages calculation, while general contingencies should remain modest absent evidence supporting a larger deduction.