Kelsey Jean Allen v. Joshua John Doiron, 2026 NBKB 49
Written by: Sarah Richard
Reading time: 6 minutes (approx.)
This case arises from a motor vehicle accident on October 10, 2015. The Plaintiff was an 18-year-old passenger who was ejected from the vehicle, which rolled multiple times at a high speed, driven by the Defendant. The accident resulted in the Plaintiff suffering serious injuries such as spinal fractures, chronic pain, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety.
The court considered the following issues:
- Were the Plaintiff’s chronic pain and psychological impairments caused by the MVA?
- Should the Plaintiff’s damages be reduced for not mitigating her losses and not wearing her seatbelt?
- What is the appropriate quantum of damages?
The Plaintiff argued that the accident caused permanent physical and psychological impairments which significantly diminished her earning capacity and quality of life. The Defendant admitted liability but disputed the extent of the injuries and their connection to the accident.
While dealing with the issue of causation, the court cited the recent case of Trainor v DeArcos, 2025 NBCA 131 and its confirmation of the principle that once factual causation has been established the court must then determine whether the type of injury sustained was ‘too remote’. The court went on to state that the case of Trainor also confirms that a Defendant need not foresee the manner in which an injury develops. The court concluded that chronic pain and psychological injury are foreseeable consequences of serious motor vehicle accidents and that the Plaintiff’s pre-existing mental health history did not defeat causation. The court clarified that the contribution of the accident to the worsening of pre-existing conditions does not relieve the Defendant of liability, stating “the presence of vulnerability does not eliminate liability”. The court applied the ‘thin skull’ principle and the Defendant was found liable for the full extent of the Plaintiff`s injuries.
Regarding the allegations of a failure to mitigate, the court, cited the cases of McDonald v Martin, 2019 NBQB 91, Janiak v Ippolito, 1981 CarswellONT 581, and Gommer v McKinnon, 2004 NBQB 142 which provide that the expectation of the Plaintiff to mitigate is not based on perfection but rather that they act reasonably in the circumstances to reduce their damages. The onus remains on the Defendant to prove that the loss could reasonably have been avoided. The Plaintiff had attempted to work, pursued education and engaged in treatment with little success and the court rejected a proposed reduction in damages based on a failure to mitigate.
The court did apply a mandatory reduction of 25% pursuant to Section 265.2(1) of the Insurance Act as a result of the Plaintiff’s failure to wear her seat belt.
The court went on to assess damages as follows:
- The court awarded $200,000 in general damages based on the Plaintiff’s young age, severe injuries and the significant impact on her quality of life. The Plaintiff was 18 years old at the time of the accident, athletic, independent and pursuing post-secondary education to become a teacher.
- The court awarded $72,262 for past loss of income and $2,139,210 for future loss of income based on a forensic accounting report which indicated that the Plaintiff was unable to sustain employment. An additional $385,457 was awarded for loss of pension benefits.
- The court awarded $492,895 for future care costs which included pain management, psychological treatment and assistive devices. Speculative treatments such as cannabis use and travel for therapy were excluded from the calculation of this award.
- The court awarded $35,342 for past loss of valuable services and $20,634 for future loss of valuable services to reflect the Plaintiff’s difficulty/inability to perform household chores. Immediately following the accident, these tasks included bathing, and as time went on, they included cleaning, laundry and deep cleaning.
The Court awarded a total of $3,335,800 in damages, which was then reduced by 25% for the seatbelt defence, bringing the total to $2,593,195.00.
Link: 2026 NBKB 49 (CanLII) | Kelsey Jean Allen v. Joshua John Doiron | CanLII
