Lost income claim dismissed in rear-ending accident

A Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) in B.C. awards an applicant $5,627 in non-pecuniary damages but finds her injuries to be minor and dismisses her claims for past and future lost income (Jang v. Wood, 2025 BCCRT 362).

Kyung Sook Jang was injured in a Nov. 8, 2020 motor vehicle accident and says she sustained a concussion, soft tissue injuries and other symptoms that prevented her from working as a piano teacher and performing her daily activities.

She asked the CRT to award $90,000 in non-pecuniary damages for pain and suffering, $750 in past income loss and $5,000 in future income loss.

Respondents, Michelle Wood and Jesse Taylor, do not deny the applicant was injured or deny liability. But they say Jang’s injuries are minor per the Insurance (Vehicle) Act (IVA) and that her pain and suffering damages should be $2,000, and that she did not suffer any other loss.

“I find the respondents are 100% liable for the accident for two reasons. First, they do not argue otherwise and expressly admit responsibility in their dispute responses, albeit with hedging language limiting their admission to this dispute. Second, finding them liable is consistent with the accident’s rear-end nature,” CRT vice chair Christopher Rivers says in a Mar. 20 decision.

That decision further notes the rear-ending took place “during a traffic jam slowdown” and that photographs from the scene “show the applicant’s rear bumper hanging below the trunk.”

Claimant’s injuries

Jang’s dispute notice lists numerous injuries, symptoms and conditions, resulting in serious impairments and lasting more than 12 months after the accident.

“She included a variety of undefined injuries to her jaw, neck, back, hips, shoulders, ribs, and right arm,” the CRT decision reads. “She mentioned a concussion as well as headaches, depression, anxiety, difficulty concentrating, nausea, vomiting, insomnia, difficulty breathing, blurred vision, and increased blood pressure.”

That differs somewhat from Jang’s initial submissions that only mention the concussion, “and in her late[r] submissions, she says only that she suffered head, neck, low back, and shoulder injuries, as well as the concussion ‘which has persisted until today,’” Rivers writes.

Her medical records show she continued to complain of neck and back pain into at least August 2023 and a brief note confirms they are “soft tissue injuries.” The applicant received referrals for chiropractic and massage from her family doctor into 2024 that mention her lower back and neck.

B.C.’s IVA lists injuries which are presumed minor unless an applicant proves the injury led to a serious impairment, and that list includes concussions that do not result in incapacity. Further, guidelines on minor injuries define incapacity as a condition that does not resolve within 16 weeks and prevents someone from performing essential employment tasks or activities of daily living (ADLs).

Rivers notes a physiotherapy record from October 2024 shows Jang “continues to suffer from concussion-related symptoms, so I have no difficulty in finding her concussion has not resolved within 16 weeks.” However, there is less evidence around her “ability to perform employment-related tasks or ADLs, I do not need to specifically address that issue.”

Lost income

Income reports from Jang’s piano teaching show she made $23,600 in 2020 but could not work in November and December, following the accident. She asked the CRT to consider her income to be $28,600 in that year. She then earned $22,800 in 2021 and $17,300 in 2022.

“The applicant does not provide records showing when she returned to work as a piano teacher or showing lessons or appointments she cancelled due to her injuries,” River writes.

He adds, “I find the similarity between her income as a piano teacher in 2020 and 2021 significantly undermines her argument she was substantially unable to teach piano as a result of her concussion after 16 weeks…”

“However, she has also not provided any evidence of any accommodations she used in an attempt to mitigate the impacts of her concussion. Other than what she asks me to infer from her change in income, she provided no evidence of reductions in her hours or the number of her students…She provided no narrative to explain any employment or ADL-related challenges. I am left with only her bare assertions. I find these do not meet her burden.”

Damages award

B.C. legislation caps non-pecuniary damages for minor injuries from accidents taking place between Apr. 1, 2020, and Mar. 31, 2021 at $5,627. The respondent admits Jang is entitled to non-pecuniary damages but says her entitlement is $2,000, according to the tribunal.

“Here, the applicant has both minor soft tissue injuries and a concussion. I find the concussion is a significant aggravating factor given the duration and severity of the applicant’s reported symptoms. In the circumstances, I award the minor injury cap of $5,627,” writes Rivers.

But claims related to Jang’s inability to work are dismissed.

The tribunal ordered the respondents to pay $5,627 in non-pecuniary damages, and $37.50 in tribunal fees.

Feature image by iStock/MCCAIG