When a person (“the plaintiff”) sues another person (“the defendant”), the plaintiff seeks remedies from the court. Most of the remedies sought are to compensate the plaintiff financially. These remedies are called damages. One type of damages is general damages in a personal injury case which are awarded for intangible losses that a person suffers due to physical injuries allegedly caused by the defendant, such as pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.
In 1978, a group of damages cases called “the trilogy cases” was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. At that time, the court placed a ceiling of $100,000 on personal injury damages. The court was very concerned that such awards could vary too greatly across the provinces and escalate beyond acceptable levels as had happened in the United States. Over time, the ceiling, or rough upper limit, has increased to take into account inflation. Thus, by the year 2000, the ceiling was in the range of $275,000.
When a plaintiff sues for pain and suffering, the plaintiff must work within the confines of the rough upper limit and should not expect a lot of money for minor injuries. A person who ends up in a wheel chair with little, if any, use of his or her arms, could expect to be in the upper limit range while a slip and fall accident causing the plaintiff some temporary back strain would probably be worth no more than a couple of thousand dollars. Although it would appear that the trilogy cases set up a kind of “meat chart” analysis, the relevant question for the court is not simply how serious the plaintiff’s injuries are but what function money can serve in the circumstances. The Supreme Court expressed it this way: “[The award] should not depend alone upon the seriousness of the injury but upon its ability to ameliorate the condition of the victim considering his or her particular situation. It, therefore, will not follow that, in considering what part of the maximum should be awarded, the gravity of the injury alone will be determinative. An appreciation of the individual’s loss is the key and the “need for solace” will not necessarily correlate with the seriousness of the injury.” The court also stated: “The award must be fair and reasonable, fairness being gauged by earlier decisions, but the award must also of necessity be arbitrary or conventional. No money can provide true restitution.”
