Loss of housekeeping capacity is an important, but often overlooked component of damages in personal injury cases. Loss of housekeeping capacity refers to a gradual or sudden inability to manage household tasks required for the maintenance of a functional household and it can encompass a wide range of household tasks, including cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping, yard work and even childcare duties (see Campbell v. Banman, 2009 BCCA 484).

Key Principles

Some key principles regarding loss of housekeeping capacity include:

1. An award of damages for loss of homemaking capacity is intended to compensate the plaintiff for the lost value of work that the plaintiff would have undertaken, but is now incapable of performing.

For many individuals, housekeeping is not just a chore; it is a way to maintain control, take pride and achieve comfort in their living spaces. For the courts, the capacity to perform housekeeping tasks is akin to an asset. Accordingly, the loss of housekeeping capacity has pecuniary value.

2. The loss is compensable either under a distinct head of damages or under any of the other, more familiar heads of damages, including non-pecuniary damages, special damages or cost of future care. This allocation depends on the specific circumstances of each case.

For example, in McTavish v. MacGillivray, 2000 BCCA 164, the BC Court of Appeal suggested that treating loss of housekeeping capacity as a non-pecuniary loss may be best suited to cases in which the plaintiff is still able to perform household tasks albeit with difficulty, while remuneration in pecuniary terms is preferable where a plaintiff is paying for services or a family member gratuitously performs the lost services, thereby avoiding necessary replacement costs (see also Kim v. Lin, 2018 BCCA 77).

In other cases, the BC Courts have outlined the principles related to the distinction between an award for loss of housekeeping capacity and other awards aimed at compensating similar loses. In Morena v. Dhillon, 2014 BCSC 141, the BC Supreme Court confirmed the distinction between awards for loss of housekeeping capacity and those for future care. The former is “an asset that is lost” whereas the latter is “an additional expense one will incur in the future”. An award for future care costs compensates for costs provided to the plaintiff; in other words, loss of housekeeping capacity is a loss to the plaintiff’s own ability to perform household work.

Furthermore, where a cost is actually incurred prior to trial, the loss of housekeeping function is compensated as special damages (see McTavish, supra).

The authorities are clear that where the plaintiff suffers a loss that is more in keeping with a loss of amenities (i.e. the plaintiff experiences increased pain and suffering while performing housekeeping chores), that loss is more appropriately compensated by a non-pecuniary damages award, whereas where the plaintiff has suffered a true loss of capacity (i.e. is now unable to perform certain tasks), that loss will be compensated by a pecuniary damages award.

Equally important to note is the fact that courts will not duplicate awards for loss of housekeeping capacity. The preferred evaluation of damages involving household chores and yard work is under the loss of housekeeping capacity head of damages. However, in cases where courts have awarded damages for future yardwork replacement services under future care, then this item will not be considered again under loss of housekeeping capacity. Similarly, there should be no duplication of awards in cases involving claims for loss of housekeeping capacity and an in-trust claim for housekeeping services undertaken by a family member in the aftermath of an accident. For instance, in Kellett v. Stam, 2018 BCSC 1127, the court declined to make an in-trust  award on behalf of the plaintiff’s son who had helped with household chores because that would constitute a duplication of the loss of housekeeping capacity claim.

3. There is no judicial consensus as to the cut-off age for awards for loss of housekeeping capacity.

While most judges will set the age limit for such awards at some point after age 70, the circumstances of each case will dictate the appropriate upper age limit for housekeeping capacity compensation. Situational factors, such as preexisting health conditions which may make it difficult to perform household chores regardless of the accident, children moving away from home (thus decreasing the amount of housework required) or the natural process of aging will play an important role in the court’s decision as to the final cut-off number.

Some examples of case law involving awards until later in life include Sangra v. Lima, 2015 BCSC 2350 where an 85-year-old plaintiff was awarded loss of housekeeping capacity until age 92 because he was active in his home prior to the accident; and in Wong v. Towns, 2015 BCSC 1333, an 84-year old plaintiff was awarded a year’s worth of loss of housekeeping capacity to age 85 as she was the primary caretaker of the family before the accident.

These cases do not suggest an open season on damages, but demonstrate that the award will be based on how long the court believes a particular plaintiff would have continued to participate in housekeeping activities. Awards for future losses are usually based on some degree of hypothetical events and loss of housekeeping capacity is no exception.

Assessment methods

Damages for loss of housekeeping capacity should be assessed, as opposed to calculated, but judges typically use the mathematical anchors provided by the annual cost of household services to arrive at an award for loss of housekeeping capacity. The assessment is based on an individual analysis; the Courts cannot transpose from other homes or cases what an appropriate award would be in each action.

The following are considerations taken into account when evaluating a claim for loss of housekeeping capacity:

• The extent of the loss (i.e. the types and frequency of household activities performed by the plaintiff prior to the date of injury);
• The extent and duration of the plaintiff’s limitations in performing household chores in the aftermath of the accident (this includes consideration of expert opinion as to the plaintiff’s injuries and the prognosis of the plaintiff’s condition);
• The age of the plaintiff;
• Household size;
• The costs of replacement services;
• Expert evidence (including medical professionals and occupational therapists); and
• The impact of the loss on the individual plaintiff.

Evidence Required

An award for loss of housekeeping capacity requires an evidentiary basis. In Fatla v. McCarthy, 2024 BCCA 311, a 36-year-old plaintiff alleged she suffered from myofascial neck pain, functional thoracic outlet syndrome and cervicogenic headaches. She contended that these injuries impaired her ability to perform housekeeping and yard work, previously shared with her husband. At trial, using global figures and calculations, and without distinguishing between past and future costs, the plaintiff sought $90,000 – $100,000 for loss of housekeeping capacity. After considering evidence from the plaintiff, a vascular surgeon and an occupational therapist, the trial judge made an award of $6,000 to cover the costs of a robotic vacuum (and one replacement) and an unspecified number of hours of yard work and home maintenance.

The plaintiff appealed this decision, arguing that the award was wholly inadequate. The BC Court of Appeal agreed and increased the award to $22,500. This amount was based on the costs of the vacuum and yard maintenance, as set out in the plaintiff’s costs of future care report. The Court of Appeal pointed out that the trial judge did not provide a basis for reducing that amount to $6,000.

The take-away is that while plaintiffs must demonstrate their entitlement to awards for loss of housekeeping capacity through cogent evidence, courts must not reduce damages without explanation.

Conclusion

Loss of housekeeping capacity is a head of damages that recognizes the economic value of household work. While calculation methods vary, the key is providing solid evidence of both the scope and value of the loss. High awards for loss of housekeeping capacity can have a significant impact on the reserve set aside by insurers handling personal injury claims. On the other hand, proper compensation in this area can make a significant difference for injured plaintiffs as they adjust to life post-injury.

Lastly, when handling files involving a loss of housekeeping capacity claim, consideration should be given to factors that point to the plaintiff’s inability to perform household tasks even in the absence of the accident, any residual capacity and the potential for improvement in the plaintiff’s condition, with the aim of minimizing the number of years for which capacity is said to have been lost.