It seems intuitive that a permanent injury and disability would lead to a decently sized award for future wage losses. However, this is not always the case. A plaintiff also needs to prove that there is a “real and substantial possibility” that their disability will actually result in a loss.
In a recent Supreme Court of British Columbia case, a plaintiff suffered permanent injuries, after two car accidents, that left them with an inability to perform heavy lifting. The Plaintiff, at the time of trial was working as a Cafeteria Teachers Aide, a job which did not involve heavy lifting. The judge found that the plaintiff’s current work was unlikely to be affected by her inability to do heavy lifting and denied the bulk of her claim for future wage losses.
https://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/07/2019BCSC0703.htm
In doing so the judge cited case law stating that a plaintiff can claim a “future or hypothetical” loss but only “as long as it is a real and substantial possibility and not mere speculation“, and a plaintiff cannot claim a loss for “an occupation that is not a realistic alternative occupation“.
It did not help the plaintiff’s case that the judge’s findings on credibility were less than enthusiastic:
[189] The preceding are examples of when the plaintiff’s testimony was evasive, inconsistent and non-forthright. Therefore, I have been cautious in accepting the plaintiff’s subjective evidence as to the nature, duration and severity of her injuries. Where her subjective assessment of her injuries conflicts with that of the expert opinions, I prefer the expert testimony.
