Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff's credibility and reliability were central, with the defendants alleging inconsistencies between trial testimony and clinical records.

• Causation under the "but for" test was applied, with liability admitted for both motor vehicle accidents.

• Chronic soft tissue injuries, cervicogenic headaches, and a resolved mild traumatic brain injury were established as accident-caused.

• Use of clinical records for impeachment was analyzed under Edmondson v. Payer, emphasizing contextual limitations.

• Past loss of income-earning capacity failed due to insufficient evidence of pecuniary loss from side work or film industry opportunities.

• Future loss of income-earning capacity was quantified using the capital asset approach under the Rab framework, with contingencies applied.

Background and facts of the accidents
Michael McCafferty, a 64-year-old security consultant, was involved in two motor vehicle accidents: the first on July 8, 2014 ("MVA1") and the second on October 4, 2014 ("MVA2"). Liability was admitted by the defendants, and the parties agreed the Court need not address apportionment of divisibility between the two accidents. At the time of MVA1, Mr. McCafferty was employed with the City of Vancouver as a Portfolio Security Manager, earning $40.05 an hour, working 35 hours a week. He was a highly qualified security and law enforcement professional who had worked as a sheriff for the BC Sheriff Service for over a decade, and later worked with Vancouver Coastal Health Authority before joining the City on April 28, 2014. Prior to MVA1, the plaintiff lived an active life, engaging in martial arts (practising and coaching), competitive archery, running/jogging, bike riding, boating, snowshoeing, and hiking, with no prior history of neck or back injury or symptoms.

Injuries sustained
As a result of MVA1, the plaintiff sustained a mild traumatic brain injury (which the Court found was minor and resolved by MVA2), soft tissue injuries to his neck, right upper back, right shoulder area, and lower back, right C4/C5 radiculopathy causing right shoulder pain, chronic post-traumatic headaches including cervicogenic headache with mixed migrainous features, along with secondary symptoms of decreased sleep, fatigue, and mood disturbance including personality changes. The lower back injury largely resolved approximately one year after MVA1. MVA2 resulted in a very brief aggravation of the neck and back injuries sustained in MVA1. The plaintiff underwent extensive treatments including physiotherapy, massage therapy, kinesiology/active rehabilitation, acupuncture, trigger point injections, and more invasive ultrasound-guided injections administered by Dr. Bamgbade, which provide longer-lasting relief of up to one-to-two weeks but cause significant nausea followed by a couple of days of hiccups.

Credibility and reliability assessment
The defendants challenged the plaintiff's credibility, pointing to inconsistencies between his trial evidence and statements in Dr. Lam's clinical records (including entries dated August 14, 2014, October 7, 2014, and March 26, 2015, to the effect that he was "pain-free," "coping well," and "starting to feel better overall"), as well as the absence of work-related complaints in Dr. Giantomaso's December 7, 2023 report. Applying the principles from Edmondson v. Payer, 2011 BCSC 118, and Bradshaw v. Stenner, 2010 BCSC 1398, Justice Morishita found Mr. McCafferty to be credible and generally reliable. The Court emphasized that clinical records are not verbatim records and that inconsistencies are almost inevitable when multiple records over a lengthy period are considered. The plaintiff was characterized as a stoic person who minimizes and downplays his injuries, and the defendants' failure to require Dr. Giantomaso for cross-examination undermined their allegation of recent fabrication.

Prognosis
The Court accepted Dr. Giantomaso's opinion that the plaintiff had met "maximal medical improvement" and that it is "extremely unlikely that any further permanent resolution of symptoms will occur," along with Dr. Lam's opinion that the plaintiff was unlikely to attain complete recovery. The Court found the plaintiff is unlikely to experience any significant and lasting improvement in his injuries and symptoms.

Non-pecuniary damages
Applying the Stapley v. Hejslet factors, the Court found the plaintiff entitled to non-pecuniary damages at the upper end of the applicable range, considering his stoicism, diligence in treatment, the over ten-year duration of symptoms without improvement, the significant impact on his recreational activities and family relationships, and his loss of housekeeping capacity. The plaintiff was awarded $180,000.00 in non-pecuniary damages, which includes $25,000.00 for loss of housekeeping capacity, treated as a non-pecuniary award under the principles summarized in Prasad v. Ross-Smith, 2023 BCSC 513.

Past loss of income-earning capacity
Although the plaintiff established a real and substantial possibility of past loss of income-earning capacity, the Court found insufficient evidence to establish any likelihood that the loss of capacity resulted in a past income loss. The claim for lost film industry side work and additional Lions Gate earnings was deemed speculative, as there was no evidence about the availability of such work or potential earnings. Accordingly, no damages were awarded under this head.

Future loss of income-earning capacity
Applying the three-step framework from Rab v. Prescott, 2021 BCCA 345, the Court found the plaintiff had established accident-caused impairments that are chronic and a real and substantial possibility of a future event causing pecuniary loss. Lions Gate Risk Management Group had been bought out by Scarlett Security & Risk Group, which changed the business model, let go of most employees, and required on-call 24-hour availability that the plaintiff could not meet due to his injuries. In April 2025, the plaintiff was promoted to Director of Risk Management with a $25,000.00 salary increase. The Court used the capital asset approach, with a starting point of two years of annual salary, or $250,000.00, then applied a 25% negative contingency for hypothetical events (including a 90% likelihood the plaintiff will not continue in his current role, with a 66.6% chance of demotion and 33.3% chance of being let go) and a 10% general negative contingency, resulting in an award of $162,500.00.

Special damages and cost of future care
Special damages were agreed at $4,376.84. For cost of future care, under Pang v. Nowakowski, 2021 BCCA 478, the Court awarded $25,093.60, comprising $2,000.00 for over-the-counter pain medication and diclofenac gel, $1,680.00 for active rehabilitation (24 sessions at $70.00 per session), $18,778.08 for passive therapies (12 acupuncture sessions annually at $95.00 per session, using Mr. Benning's multiplier of 16.472), and $2,635.52 for mileage ($160.00 per year using the same multiplier). Claims for trigger point injections and nerve blocks, and mental health support were declined due to a lack of cost evidence.

Ruling and overall outcome
Justice Morishita ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Mr. McCafferty, finding that the accidents caused ongoing and chronic injuries with significant impact on his personal and professional life. Total damages of $371,970.44 were awarded against the defendants, jointly and severally, less any statutory deductions. If the parties cannot agree on costs, a hearing may be scheduled within 45 days; otherwise, the plaintiff shall have his costs at Scale B.