Ontario Court of Appeal reviews three types of housekeeping losses

When it comes to evaluating pecuniary (which can be counted) and non-pecuniary (which can’t be counted) housekeeping losses in a personal injury action, Canadian courts have “developed an unnecessarily complex approach” since Fobel v. Dean in 1991, the Ontario Court of Appeal has observed.
In McIntyre v. Docherty, released May 29, 2009, the Ontario Court of Appeal said that in order “to avoid this kind of confusion in future cases where different scenarios of housekeeping losses arise, it will be helpful if the jury can be specifically instructed regarding the type of loss at issue and the evidence in support of that loss.”
The court goes on to classify three different types of housekeeping losses:
1) Pre-trial: Work Left Undone:
“Where the injured plaintiff is unable to perform some or all housekeeping tasks, and where a third party [i.e. a housekeeper] does not do the work in the injured person’s stead, work will be left undone,” wrote Ontario Court of Appeal Justice Susan E. Lang for the court. “In that situation, the injured plaintiff will experience two sorts of intangible losses compensable in an award of non-pecuniary [i.e. general] damages.”
2) Pre-trial: Work Done By the Plaintiff with Difficulty:
“A plaintiff may continue to undertake housekeeping but may experience pain or difficulty in doing so…” Lang wrote. “He or she may be required to work more hours post-accident to accomplish the same amount of pre-accident housekeeping.
“If a plaintiff thus works ‘inefficiently,’ he or his non-pecuniary award would be increased to reflect any increased pain and suffering.”
3) Pre-Trial: Work Done by Third Parties:
“The law is well-established that where a plaintiff incurs a pre-trial, out-of-pocket loss by hiring a replacement homemaker, the plaintiff may claim the reasonable replacement costs of that homemaker as special [i.e. pecuniary] damages.”