Ruling says accident didn’t cause her mental illness but made her vulnerable to disabling condition
In a case arising from a motor vehicle accident, the British Columbia Supreme Court awarded total damages of $879,458 to an airport screening officer who developed a disabling chronic pain condition due to her back and leg injuries.
On Sept. 5, 2018, the plaintiff in Veloso v Elshazly, 2026 BCSC 983, was driving home from her work at the Vancouver International Airport. She stopped at a red light at the intersection of South West Marine Drive and Ontario Street in Vancouver.
A vehicle owned and driven by the defendant, a supervisor at the plaintiff’s work, rear-ended the plaintiff's vehicle. The forceful impact damaged both vehicles.
The plaintiff subsequently took multiple weeks off work. Seeking damages as compensation, she asserted that she could no longer work full-time due to the accident.
At trial, the defendant admitted liability. However, he alleged that the plaintiff’s injuries had resolved by mid-2020 at the latest.
Damages awarded
For the plaintiff’s accident-related injuries, the Supreme Court of British Columbia found her entitled to $879,458 in total damages, comprising:
- $175,000 in non-pecuniary damages
- $90,000 for past lost income or earning capacity
- $450,000 for loss of future earning capacity
- $150,000 in future care costs
- $14,458 in special damages
First, the court addressed the extent and cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. The court ruled that the accident caused soft-tissue injuries to her upper, middle, and lower back, as well as injury to a nerve root, leading to ongoing recurring, radiating, and sometimes debilitating right leg and hip pain (radicular pain).
The court determined that the plaintiff’s chronic pain condition, which involved her nervous system’s central sensitization, prevented her from performing the necessary functions of a full-time airport screening officer.
The court held that the plaintiff’s chronic pain condition did not prevent her from performing advocacy and recording duties as her union’s elected recording secretary until the end of 2025, a role she could no longer hold after the most recent union election results.
Regarding her mental health, the court found that the plaintiff experienced depression, which the accident did not cause, and significant anxiety symptoms relating to her chronic pain and efforts to avoid such pain.
Second, the court tackled the impacts of the plaintiff’s pre-existing mental and physical health conditions on her losses. The court determined that the plaintiff’s pre-existing conditions did not cause her current disability and did not cause or would not likely cause disability independent of the defendant’s negligence.
The court acknowledged that the plaintiff’s depression did not cause her chronic pain condition. However, the court ruled that her depression did make her more vulnerable to the cycle of chronic pain.
Third, the court held that the bullying and harassment incidents the plaintiff experienced at work from 2023–24 were not an intervening event that broke the chain of causation regarding her disability.
The court accepted that the bullying and harassment undoubtedly made the plaintiff’s work more difficult. However, the court found that these incidents did not prevent her from performing her full-time work sustainably.
Even if the bullying and harassment had not happened, the court concluded that the plaintiff would still have needed medical leave for her chronic pain, specifically a 2024 flare-up of her right-sided radicular pain.
