L.V. v. T.R. Date:, 2015 BCPC 332

Citation: L.V. v. T.R. Date: 20151030 2015 BCPC 0332 File No: 40383 Registry: Kamloops IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Small Claims Court) BETWEEN: L.V. CLAIMANT AND: T.R. DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE L.S. MARCHAND Appearing on her own behalf: L.V. Appearing on his own behalf: T.R. Place of Hearing: Merritt , B.C. Date of Hearing: September 2 & 3, 2015 Date of Judgment: October 30, 2015 INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] L.V. and T.R. were in a romantic relationship from soon after they met in April 2011 until July 2014. During this time, they mostly lived together in L.V.’s home until May 2014.

They also shared personal property, merged their financial affairs and fought. [ 2 ] L.V. now seeks from T.R.: 1. the return of a poodle cross named Bea or, in the alternative, damages for various costs she incurred in caring for Bea during her relationship with T.R.; 2. the cost of a tattoo which T.R. purchased with L.V.’s debit card after the couple had separated; and 3. damages for personal injuries and damage to property arising from three physical assaults L.V. alleges T.R. committed against her in December 2012, sometime in 2013 and on July 2, 2014. [ 3 ] T.R. maintains that Bea has belonged to him “from the get go”, is prepared to repay L.V. for the cost of his tattoo and acknowledges having assaulted L.V. in December 2012.

T.R. denies having assaulted L.V. on the other occasions and questions the extent of the harm L.V. suffered as a result of his actions in December 2012. ANALYSIS [ 4 ] Before dealing with each of L.V.’s claims, I will begin with some comments about credibility and reliability. Credibility and Reliability [ 5 ] The testimony given by both L.V. and T.R. had many of the common indicators of credibility. [ 6 ] Both L.V. and T.R. presented well in court. Both are bright and articulate and were organized and well prepared for court.

Both were able to give appropriately detailed accounts of the events at issue. [ 7 ] Despite the high emotions surrounding this case, for the most part, L.V. and T.R. focused on the issues and treated each other with respect during the trial. [ 8 ] L.V. and T.R. were fair in their testimony.

They each avoided opportunities to embellish their testimony and/or acknowledged information that was harmful to their own case. [ 9 ] For example, to her credit, L.V. suspects that T.R. made other purchases using her debit card but only advanced her claim to recover the cost of T.R.’s tattoo because she was certain about that claim. L.V. gave very modest estimates for items she says T.R. damaged during the July 2, 2014 incident.

L.V. also gave T.R. credit for “coming to her rescue” in April 2011 and acknowledged the extent of previous abuse and struggles she suffered before meeting T.R. [ 10 ] For his part, and to his credit, T.R. did not contest the tattoo claim and acknowledged having assaulted L.V. in December 2012. T.R. also acknowledged some of the harm caused by his December 2012 assault of L.V., including the fact that she missed a week of work as a result. [ 11 ] While L.V. and T.R. appeared to be doing their best to be truthful, I had some concerns about the reliability of some of the testimony given by each of them.

My concerns arise out of certain internal and external inconsistencies in their testimony. I will detail my findings below but at this point can say that the objective evidence generally favours L.V.’s version of events. Ownership of Bea [ 12 ] Each of L.V. and T.R. claims ownership of Bea. [ 13 ] L.V. relies on her testimony, the testimony of her mother, Y.V., the testimony of her friend, C.S., and various documents which identify her as Bea’s owner.

For clarity, in the balance of these reasons I will refer to the claimant, L.V., as “L.V.” and Y.V. either by her full name or as L.V.’s mother. [ 14 ] T.R. relies on his testimony and text messages from L.V.’s mother and L.V.’s former tenant, T. T.R. also argues that Bea cannot be returned to L.V. because L.V. would then be in violation of a City of Merritt bylaw that permits only two pets to be licenced per residence. [ 15 ] The parties’ dispute over Bea is emotional and has been so heated that the police have been involved. That said, certain facts are not in dispute. [ 16 ] There is no dispute that: 1.

L.V. purchased Bea’s mother and father before she met T.R.; 2. Bea was delivered on March 19, 2012 when L.V. and T.R. were living together; 3. All records from the Merritt Vet Hospital show L.V. as Bea’s owner; 4. During their relationship, L.V. and T.R. pooled money in L.V.’s bank account and L.V. paid the couple’s bills from this account, including veterinary bills for Bea; 5. During their relationship, there were times when T.R. moved out, including one stretch of several months when T.R. moved to

Alberta for work. T.R. did not take Bea with him on any of these occasions; 6. After T.R. moved out of L.V.’s home in May of 2014, he received text messages from Y.V. and T. which referred to Bea as T.R.’s dog; 7. T.R. has had Bea in his possession since he picked her up from the veterinarian’s office on July 26, 2014; and 8.

Following T.R. taking Bea into his possession, L.V. sent a text message to T.R. asking him to pick up Bea’s licence without making any claim for T.R. to return Bea. [ 17 ] There was quite a bit of controversy about how T.R. took Bea into his possession on July 26, 2014 at the veterinarian’s office and L.V.’s efforts to get Bea back afterwards. As none of the parties’ “after the fact” actions are of any assistance in determining Bea’s ownership, I will not detail those actions.

Suffice to say that both took actions which resulted in police involvement and which, in retrospect, they must find embarrassing. [ 18 ] Regarding the evidence which favours L.V.’s claim of ownership, T.R. says “everything” was in L.V.’s name and the couple utilized her bank account because of his past financial troubles and lack of credit. Regarding the veterinarian’s office, T.R. says that L.V. was already a client of that office so Bea’s account remained in L.V.’s name.

Regarding the times T.R. moved from L.V.’s home without taking Bea, T.R. says that he could not take Bea with him to Alberta because of other dogs that were in the home where he lived and he could not take Bea with him to his residence in Merritt because the landlord did not allow dogs. [ 19 ] Regarding the text messages sent to T.R. by Y.V. and T., L.V. says that she did not control what they wrote. That said, it was clear on all of the evidence that L.V. had some role in the text messages. Following the break up, L.V. has had financial struggles which she blames on T.R.

As a result, she wanted T.R. to pay the veterinarian bill on July 26, 2014. L.V. says the text messages referred to Bea as T.R.’s dog as a way of getting T.R. to pay that bill. The text messages also tried to misdirect T.R. to show up at the veterinarian’s office to pay the bill after Bea had already been picked up by L.V.

Regarding her own text message about Bea’s dog licence, L.V. says that she had been informed by the police that the dispute about Bea was a civil and not criminal matter and wanted Bea to have her licence in case she got out of T.R.’s home. [ 20 ] Though I do not endorse L.V.’s tactic of trying to deceive T.R. regarding payment of the veterinarian’s bill, it was an emotionally and financially difficult time for her and I accept her explanation that she wanted T.R. to pay the veterinarian’s bill without relinquishing her ownership of Bea.

L.V.’s explanation about her own text message also makes sense and I accept her explanation as true. [ 21 ] Regarding T.R.’s position, it is true that he regularly put money into L.V.’s bank account and that L.V. took responsibility for paying the couple’s bills. It is not true, however, that “everything” was put in L.V.’s name.

T.R. acknowledged in cross-examination that he was identified as the co-owner of a truck and had the insurance on that truck in his name even though L.V. was responsible for paying for the truck and insurance out of her bank account. [ 22 ] T.R.’s explanations regarding leaving Bea behind when he moved out also do not bear scrutiny. After returning from Alberta, T.R. cared for his nephew’s pit bull cross at L.V.’s home. T.R. lived with this same nephew and a pit bull cross in Alberta. I do not believe T.R.’s explanation that these were different dogs.

In Merritt, it was only after T.R. took possession of Bea that he says he found a place that would allow him to have a pet. It is hard to imagine that a committed pet owner like T.R. would move into a place that did not allow pets and that he only found such a place after he took Bea from the veterinarian’s office. [ 23 ] T.R.’s argument that he should be awarded Bea because the City of Merritt only allows two pets per residence may cause L.V. some problems if I order T.R. to return Bea to her but is irrelevant to my determination of Bea’s ownership.

I note that T.R. did not have any concerns about living with three and, at times more, pets in L.V.’s home while they were together. [ 24 ] Given L.V.’s ownership of Bea’s parents, the fact that she is shown as Bea’s owner in the Merritt Vet Hospital records and the fact that she exclusively cared for Bea during times when T.R. was not living in her home, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that L.V. is Bea’s owner and I order that T.R. promptly return Bea to L.V. Tattoo Claim [ 25 ] L.V.’s bank records show a $420 purchase from Psychocity Tattoos on May 9, 2014.

L.V. says T.R. made this purchase after the couple had separated and were no longer sharing household expenses. T.R. acknowledges that he was tattooed on May 9, 2014 and that he may have said he would pay L.V. back. [ 26 ] From the outset of the trial, T.R. said he was “fine” with paying for the tattoo. This was an appropriate concession and I give judgment to L.V. for $420 for the tattoo. The Assault Claims [ 27 ] In analysing L.V.’s assault claims, I will begin by setting out some additional background and making findings about what happened.

I will then assess L.V.’s claims for the personal injuries she claims to have suffered. Finally, I will assess L.V.’s claims for the damage she claims T.R. caused to her property. Background and Findings Regarding the Assault Claims [ 28 ] L.V. and T.R. met on April 14, 2011. At the time, L.V. was living in Merritt and T.R. in Kamloops. The next day, they were speaking on the telephone and T.R. had an uneasy feeling about some things L.V. was saying. T.R. drove to Merritt and found L.V. “not in good shape”. L.V. had consumed a large number of pills in an apparent suicide attempt.

L.V. testified that she had taken the pills to get one night of peace from a former partner of hers named K.S. who was, in her words, relentlessly harassing her. L.V. denied that she

was intending to end her own life. [ 29 ] T.R. tried to get L.V. to throw up, then “scooped up” L.V. and the empty pill bottles and took L.V. to the hospital in Merritt. L.V. was in serious condition and was transferred to the Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops where she spent about ten days on the psychiatric ward. During this time, T.R. took responsibility for many personal matters on behalf of L.V. and visited her on a daily basis. [ 30 ] T.R. moved in with L.V. soon after in Merritt. L.V. shared with T.R. her history of having been in a nine year relationship with Mr.

S. during which she had suffered emotional, physical and sexual abuse. [ 31 ] Both parties say they initially got along quite well but they were both drinking and got into arguments. L.V. says that T.R. physically assaulted her in July 2011 but I did not get the details as the limitation period for this assault expired prior to the filing of the Notice of Claim in November 2014. [ 32 ] The first potentially compensable assault occurred in December 2012.

On an unspecified date that month, L.V. says T.R. grabbed and choked her, kicked her in the head and stomped on her fingers and knee (when he was aware that she had previously injured her knee). L.V. says T.R. also threw her around, including onto a table. During the attack, L.V. says T.R. threatened to cut her up into tiny pieces so no one would find her. L.V. says T.R. attacked and pummelled her for an hour.

I saw photographs of L.V.’s injuries which included bruising and/or abrasions to her right wrist and elbow, left arm and left side of her neck and back. [ 33 ] As a consequence of this assault, L.V. says she missed one week of work as a Licenced Practical Nurse. She also says that it took three weeks for her bruises to heal, that she was generally sore for about a month and that her knee and fingers were sore for a couple of months. [ 34 ] T.R. testified that this incident occurred after a Christmas party which L.V. left saying she wanted nothing to do with T.R.

T.R. says he found her “at her boyfriend’s” and assaulted her. T.R. pled guilty to the assault and claims that he does not recall the details. He acknowledged that the photographs “tell the story”. T.R. does not dispute that L.V. missed a week of work. T.R. also does not dispute the extent of L.V.’s physical injuries. [ 35 ] I accept L.V.’s description of the events of December 2012 as true. I also accept L.V.’s description of her physical injuries and that she missed work as a result of the assault.

I will deal with the emotional injuries L.V. associates with this and the other assaults later in my reasons. [ 36 ] I will next deal with the assault that L.V. says occurred at some point in 2013. L.V., Y.V. and T.R. all agree that there was an incident that occurred when L.V. was in the shower. They also all agree that this occurred the day after L.V. and T.R. had an argument following which T.R. left the residence for the night. [ 37 ] L.V. testified that T.R. was angry with her when he entered the bathroom where she was showering the next morning.

She says that he pulled down the shower curtain and rod and that she then sat down in the tub. L.V. testified that T.R. punched her on top of her head and that she screamed for her mother (who was living in the residence at the time). L.V. says she saw T.R. scuffle with Y.V., push her to the ground and throw coffee on her. L.V. testified that her mother broke her thumb as a result. Regarding her own injuries, L.V. says that she had a bump on the back of her head which lasted about a week.

L.V. adduced a photograph of damage to the bathroom drywall which she says was caused by T.R. ripping down the shower rod. [ 38 ] T.R. says that he was tired of L.V.’s drinking which had led to their argument the night before and that he was also tired of sleeping in his truck. He acknowledges that he was “not happy” when he came back to the home. When he tried to get to the bathroom to speak with L.V., T.R. says that Y.V. pushed him down the hall, away from where L.V. was showering.

T.R. says that he eventually braced himself against Y.V.’s pushing and it was at this point that Y.V. fell to the floor and T.R.’s cold coffee spilled on her. T.R. acknowledges going into the bathroom, grabbing the shower curtain and kicking the shower rod into the wall causing a hole in the drywall.

T.R. denies that he punched L.V. on the head. [ 39 ] Though Y.V. was not present in the bathroom to see whether T.R. punched her daughter, Y.V.’s testimony corroborated her daughter’s version of events. [ 40 ] While I have some concerns about the extent of what L.V. says she witnessed of the interactions between T.R. and Y.V., I accept her testimony about what happened in the shower and how long the bump on her head lasted. She testified about the events with emotion that was consistent with her description of events.

Even though she could not put a date to when the assault took place, her testimony had an appropriate level of detail. L.V.’s testimony was also corroborated by her mother’s testimony, the photograph of the damaged drywall and T.R.’s acknowledgement that he was angry when he returned to the home. [ 41 ] The final assault is alleged to have occurred on July 2, 2014. Though the parties were no longer living together at that time, their relationship continued.

Both acknowledge that there was a physical fight on July 2, 2014 and that it had to do with T.R. feeding L.V.’s tenants with L.V.’s food without her specific permission. The details of what led to the fight are not important. [ 42 ] L.V. says she went to speak with T.R. in her bedroom and found him packing his things to leave. She acknowledges that she may have upset or antagonized him. L.V. says that T.R. responded by smashing a framed picture on the floor, throwing her into a wall, a closet door and onto the floor and kicking an antique nightstand (which caused a lamp to fall).

L.V. says T.R. then began hitting his own face with his cell phone and threatening to call the police. L.V. says she grabbed the top of the cell phone and that it broke. L.V. also acknowledged in cross examination that a laptop she had purchased for T.R. was broken during the altercation. She maintained this occurred because of T.R. pushing her. [ 43 ] T.R. says that L.V. initiated the altercation and was the aggressor. He says that she followed him into the bedroom and prevented him from leaving. He says that she snapped his laptop in half before anything physical happened.

He says L.V. ran at him when his back was turned and sent him face first into a table. T.R. says that L.V. was “mostly” on his back and that he never turned to face and attack her. He says he tried to get her off him and acknowledges that the two of them ended up on the floor. He says he tried to

get out a bedroom window and ultimately pushed his way out of the bedroom. He described L.V. breaking his cell phone when he triedto call 911. T.R. is not sure exactly how the framed picture, nightstand, lamp, closet door and drywall were damaged. He acknowledgedthat these articles were damaged during the altercation which he described as “quite a tussle”. T.R. says that he suffered the same degreeof injury as L.V. and that a small mark on his arm was a scar from the incident. [44] L.V. adduced photographs of the damaged property as well as of her injuries.

The photographs of L.V.’s injuries show bruiseson her arm, chest and neck as well as cuts and scrapes to her wrist, knee and foot. The cuts and scrapes to L.V.’s knee and foot areconsistent with her having landed on broken glass on the floor. L.V.’s physical injuries look like they would have healed within two orthree weeks. [45] T.R. did not produce any photographs of his injuries. He says that he did not think to take any. [46] The police attended the scene, apparently as a result of a neighbour’s call to 911.

Ultimately, mischief charges against L.V. andassault charges against T.R. did not proceed. [47] There were some internal inconsistencies in L.V.’s description of how the closet door in the bedroom was damaged and sheadded details to her description of events in answer to questions I asked and during T.R.’s cross examination of her. In spite of theinconsistency and the additional detail, I generally accept her version of events, including the extent of her physical injuries. L.V.testified with emotion. She was also emotionally unable to cross examine T.R. regarding his version of events.

L.V.’s emotionalreaction in the courtroom was sincere and was consistent with her description of events. I accept that the internal inconsistency and theinitial withholding of some details were due to the traumatic nature of T.R.’s attack. In addition, the photographs of L.V.’s injuries areonly consistent with her testimony. Given the bruises to L.V.’s neck and chest, it cannot be true that L.V. was “mostly” on T.R.’s backnor that T.R. did not turn, face and attack L.V.

Assessment of Non-Pecuniary and Aggravated Damages for Personal Injuries [48] L.V. seeks non-pecuniary damages for the physical and emotional injuries she alleges she suffered as a result of the threeassaults T.R. perpetrated against her. [49] I have already set out my findings regarding the nature and extent of the physical injuries L.V. suffered. The real issue is theextent of the emotional injuries suffered by L.V. as a result of T.R.’s assaults. [50] Coming into her relationship with T.R., L.V. already had some emotional difficulties stemming from her relationship with Mr.S.

Specifically, L.V. says she suffered from nightmares, anxiety attacks, depression, nausea, headaches, low self-esteem, suicidal or self-destructive tendencies, problems trusting others, problems with mood swings and substance abuse to deal with her feelings. L.V. saysthat her difficulties were all significantly exacerbated by T.R.’s assaults. She says she felt “tenfold crushed and devastated” because T.R.knew her history and was supposed to be her saviour. He had literally saved her life and promised to always take care of her. He “hadtaken on a care-giver role then destroyed it all”.

Since her separation from T.R., L.V. says that she is functioning much better. [51] In most personal injury cases of this type, the claimant adduces expert evidence from a doctor, psychiatrist, psychologist and/orcounsellor to establish a causal connection between the assaults and the alleged emotional injuries, the extent of those emotional injuriesand a prognosis for recovery. In this case, L.V. represented herself and provided only a few pages of clinical records from her familydoctor and the Merritt Hospital.

These clinical records document the physical injuries she suffered as a result of the July 2, 2014 assaultand that she was also upset, sad and angry about that assault. L.V.’s family physician diagnosed that L.V. was suffering from an “acutestress reaction”. [52] I have reviewed a number of the leading cases on causation in the context of assessing personal injury damages, including Snellv. Farrell, (SCC), [1990] 2 SCR 311, Athey v. Leonati, (SCC), [1996] 3 SCR 458, M.B. v. B.C., 2003SCC 53, Blackwater v. Plint, 2005 SCC 58, Resurfice v. Hanke, 2007 SCC 7 and Clements v. Clements, 2012 SCC 32.

A number ofprinciples emerge, including: 1. The basic test for determining causation is the “but for” test. This test requires that the claimant establish on a balance ofprobabilities that “but for” the defendant’s actions, the injury would not have occurred; 2. The “but for” test is to be applied in a robust common sense fashion. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, an inference ofcausation may be drawn without positive or scientific proof; 3.

In cases where there are multiple causes of injury, as long as the defendant’s actions are a necessary cause of the claimant’s injury,the defendant is fully liable for that damage. The defendant’s actions do not need to be the only cause of the claimant’s injury; and 4. Once the claimant proves that the defendant caused injury, damages are awarded to compensate the claimant based on the extent ofthe injury. Damages are awarded to return the claimant to the position she was in before she was injured by the defendant, which isreferred to as her “original position”.

Damages are not to place the claimant in a better position than her original position norcompensate her for any harm she would have suffered anyway. [53] In assessing non-pecuniary damages, the authorities are clear that aggravated damages may be awarded to augment an award ofnon-pecuniary damages. Aggravated damages are not designed to punish the defendant. Rather, aggravated damages are designed tocompensate a claimant for the aggravation of the injuries suffered by her as a result of the defendant’s outrageous, malicious or high-handed conduct.

Aggravating circumstances include such things as a special relationship between the parties, the number, duration andnature of the assaults, humiliation, degradation, having an assault witnessed by others, taking advantage of vulnerabilities, the physicalpain and mental suffering associated with the assaults and lack of remorse on the part of the defendant. (See Norberg v. Wynrib, (SCC), [1992] 2 SCR 226, S.Y. v. F.G.C. (1997), (BC CA), 26 BCLR (3d) 155 (CA), T.W. v. Seo (2005), (ON CA), 256 D.L.R. (4th) 1 (ONCA), Huff v. Price (1990), (BC CA), 51 BCLR (2d) 282 (CA),Van Dusen v.

Van Dusen, 2010 ONSC 220 and Costantini v. Costantini, 2013 ONSC 1626.)

[ 54 ] In assessing the extent of the harm suffered by L.V. as a result of T.R.’s assaults, it is clear that her original position was significantly damaged by Mr. S.. L.V. acknowledges that she was suffering from extensive emotional difficulties prior to becoming involved with T.R. to the point that she had engaged in self-harm if not suicidal actions. Similar to the findings of the trial judge in M.B. , I accept L.V.’s testimony that T.R.’s repetition of Mr. S.’s abusive conduct significantly exacerbated her emotional difficulties (see M.B. at paragraphs 52-54 ).

Even though L.V. is doing much better since her separation from T.R., I also conclude from her presentation in court and testimony that her increased emotional difficulties were neither trifling nor temporary. In fact, I find that L.V. has continued to be emotionally disturbed by T.R.’s assaults up to the date of the trial and that her increased emotional distress will continue for some time. [ 55 ] I have reviewed a significant number of decisions from various jurisdictions to assist me in making an appropriate award of non-pecuniary damages to L.V.

Though no two cases are the same, I found some similarities between L.V.’s case and the cases of L.N.S. v. W.M.K. , 1999 ABQB 478 , K.R.W. v. S.A.W. , 2003 BCSC 522 and Costantini , which after adjusting for inflation produce a range for non-pecuniary, including aggravated, damages of $12,000 to $20,000. [ 56 ] In this case, even though L.V.’s original position was damaged, I place her at the high end of the range. I do so not only because of the extent of the physical and emotional injuries but also because of the number and nature of aggravating features of the assaults, including: 1.

T.R. assaulted L.V. on three separate occasions over a nineteen month period; 2. One assault occurred when Y.V. was present in the home. The presence of L.V.’s mother created an additional level of humiliation for L.V.; 3. T.R. and L.V. were in a relationship of trust and dependency at the time of the assaults; 4. Given her history, L.V. was particularly vulnerable. She considered T.R. to be her saviour. T.R. was well aware of L.V.’s history and vulnerability when he assaulted her; and 5. T.R.’s attack in December 2012 was particularly outrageous and malicious.

The attack was lengthy and targeted parts of L.V.’s body which T.R. knew had been previously injured and which could, therefore, be expected to cause the most pain. This attack was accompanied by degrading and deplorable threats which have continued to haunt L.V. [ 57 ] Taking all of the above into account, I award L.V. $20,000 for non-pecuniary, including aggravated, damages. Assessment of Pecuniary Damages [ 58 ] L.V. adduced documentary evidence to establish that she missed five days of work as a result of T.R.’s December 2012 assault.

As indicated above, T.R. did not dispute that L.V. was unable to work these days as a result of his attack. L.V. was able to take sick time for her missed shifts and, therefore, suffered no loss of income. L.V. did, however, lose the benefit of her sick time entitlement. [ 59 ] In Bjarnson v. Parks , 2009 BCSC 48 , Madam Justice Ballance analysed the issue of how to value the loss of sick time entitlements.

While Madam Justice Ballance awarded the plaintiff the full value of her lost sick time benefits (calculated by multiplying the sick time hours used by the plaintiff’s usual hourly rate of pay), Madam Justice Ballance also recognized at paragraph 61 of her judgment that, in some cases, it may be appropriate to make deductions for contingencies depending on the presence or absence of certain factors, including, for example: …whether there is a maximum limit of accumulated sick leave, whether the plaintiff is able to cash out accumulated sick leave days on termination or retirement, whether the plaintiff has several years of employment remaining in which to potentially use the sick leave or has only a few months of employment left until retirement with a significant sick leave remaining, or whether the plaintiff has left the employment in which he earned the sick day credits altogether. [ 60 ] I accept L.V.’s testimony that the full value of her lost sick time benefit can be calculated by multiplying her lost hours (35) by her usual hourly wage ($20.72) which totals $725.20.

However, in the absence of any evidence from L.V. regarding how her sick time benefits are accumulated and administered, it is appropriate to reduce this award to take into account various contingencies, including the contingency that she never depletes her sick time benefits and that she is not eligible to have any unused sick time paid out to her when she discontinues working for her current employer. [ 61 ] In my view, an award of $400 will adequately compensate L.V. for the loss of her sick time benefits.

Property Damage Claim [ 62 ] Based on the photographs I have seen, I have no hesitation in concluding that T.R.’s assaults of L.V. caused damage to L.V.’s home and some of her personal property. [ 63 ] Dealing first with L.V.’s home, I accept her testimony that the December 2012 assault damaged some drywall and a closet door within her home. I also accept L.V.’s testimony that the 2013 assault left a hole in the drywall in her bathroom. L.V. testified that she has not been able to afford repairs and L.V. did not provide any cost estimates from a contractor regarding how much it would cost to complete repairs.

Doing the best I can with the information I have, I award L.V. $300 to repair the damage caused by T.R. to her home. [ 64 ] Dealing next with L.V.’s personal property, I accept her testimony that T.R. smashed a framed picture which had a value of $50 and that his assaults of L.V. resulted in a broken lamp which had a value of $20 and in $40 worth of damage to a nightstand. I, therefore, award L.V. $110 for the damage to her personal property caused by T.R.

Fees and Expenses [ 65 ] As the successful party, I award L.V. her filing fee of $156. I also award L.V. her out of pocket expenses associated with advancing the claim, including such things as photocopies, photographs and medical records. I do not have any evidence regarding these out of pocket expenses but conclude that they are modest and do not warrant an assessment by the Registrar. Instead, I award L.V. $150 for her out of pocket expenses.

SUMMARY AND ORDER [ 66 ] To summarize, I make the following order: 1. T.R. shall promptly return the poodle cross named Bea to L.V.; 2. L.V. has judgment against T.R. in the amount of $21,230 plus her filing fee of $156 and $150 for her out of pocket expenses for a total of $21,536. ___________________________ L.S. Marchand Provincial Court Judge