Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff sustained chronic lower back injuries from two rear-end collisions; liability was admitted by the defendants.

• Trial judge awarded damages for past and future loss of earning capacity based primarily on reduced overtime earning potential.

• Defendants challenged the credibility of the plaintiff and the reliability of expert opinions based on incomplete accident history disclosure.

• A 5% contingency deduction for a pre-existing back condition was applied to future income loss but not past income loss.

• Both appeal and cross-appeal argued errors in how the trial judge assessed contingencies and causation related to subsequent accidents.

• The BC Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding no reversible errors in the application of law or factual assessments.

Facts and outcome of the case

The case arose from two motor vehicle accidents involving the plaintiff, Pravdeep Sekhon, which occurred on February 18, 2017, and January 24, 2019. In both incidents, Sekhon was rear-ended while working for the BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. He was diagnosed with soft tissue injuries, the most serious of which affected his lower back. These injuries limited his ability to perform physically demanding tasks and, crucially, his capacity to work overtime—a key factor in his role as an Assistant Bridge Construction Supervisor (STO).

Following the accidents, Sekhon transitioned to a less physically demanding office role (AO position) and later attempted, then withdrew, an application to return to his former STO role. His claim focused on the loss of earning capacity from reduced overtime opportunities and potential career advancement. He filed separate civil claims for each accident, which were later heard together in a 10-day trial held in November and December 2022.

The trial judge found that the injuries were caused by the two accidents and accepted that they resulted in a loss of earning potential. While skeptical of some of Sekhon’s testimony—particularly his failure to disclose subsequent accidents to medical experts—the judge found sufficient evidence to award damages. The court awarded him $30,483.76 for past income loss, $336,055 for future income loss (after contingency deductions), $47,250 in non-pecuniary damages, $10,527 for future care, and $13,032 in agreed special damages, for a total of $437,348.76.

On appeal, the defendants (Chandi, Chandi, and Cruz) argued that the trial judge erred by not applying stronger negative contingencies to account for pre-existing conditions and subsequent accidents. They also alleged the damages awarded were excessive and that the plaintiff’s higher salary in the AO role had not been properly considered. Sekhon, in his cross-appeal, challenged the 5% contingency deduction related to his pre-existing back condition, arguing it was speculative and unsupported.

The BC Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeals and cross-appeal. It held that the trial judge correctly applied the legal principles governing causation and contingencies. It also found the 5% deduction reasonable given the evidence, particularly in light of a fourth accident that was similar in nature to the first. The court emphasized the distinction between causation (legal liability) and compensation (quantum of damages), concluding that the trial judge’s damage assessment was fair, supported by evidence, and not in error.

In the end, the trial decision was upheld in full, and Sekhon retained the full damages award without alteration.