[26] There was no evidence by an economic loss expert to present value the future medical treatments, whatever they might be, or future care costs.
[27] Simply put, there was no evidence to provide the jury with the necessary tools to determine what future medical treatments and care costs were reasonable and necessary. There was no evidence as to the frequency of those future treatments, over what period of time and what medication would be required. Also, there was no evidence to quantify and present value those costs.
[28] In El Khodr v. Lackie, 2017 ONCA 716 (CanLII) at para. 22, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that where the costs of future prescription medications were justified on the evidence, the jury ought to have been instructed not to award any sum for drug benefits after the Plaintiff reached the age of sixty-five (65). From that age forward, the Plaintiff suffers no loss because drug claims would be covered by the ODBP.
[29] In my view, we do not even approximate this issue in El Khodr. Rather, the jury is left much in the same way as it would be left regarding the future loss of income claim. The jury is left to speculate, pulling a number out of thin air.
[30] Again, I find there is not sufficient evidence on which a properly instructed jury, acting judicially, in accordance with a judge’s instructions on the law, could reasonably calculate or quantify the Plaintiff’s future medical treatment or care costs claim. Accordingly, this question will not be put to the jury.
DRAFT QUESTION 1(e): FUTURE MILEAGE EXPENSE TO MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS
[31] The Plaintiff submits that there is sufficient evidence upon which this question ought to be left to the jury. The Plaintiff submits that mileage from where she currently lives to Dr. Steciuk’s (chiropractor) office is less than five kilometres. There was no other evidence as to the cost of any such mileage. There was no costing as to the frequency of the Plaintiff’s attendances on health care providers for medical appointments. Those providers have not been identified. There was no indication other than the location of Dr. Steciuk’s office as to where these other providers are located, how often the Plaintiff would have to attend upon those providers, what the costing would be and what the present value of the mileage expense would be. Rather, I find that the same reasoning regarding the previous two questions also applies to this question. This question, like the others, invites speculation on the part of the jury without a sufficient evidentiary foundation.
[32] I find there is not sufficient evidence on which a properly instructed jury, acting judicially in accordance with the judge’s instructions on the law, could reasonably calculate or quantify the Plaintiff’s future mileage expense to medical appointments claim. Accordingly, this question will not be put to the jury.