|claims damages for injuries caused by an assault on May 20, 2006; resident manager and the security manager at Capilano Mobile Park|
Reasons for Judgment
 Robert Wright claims damages for injuries caused by an assault by Colin Mastin on May 20, 2006. Mr. Wright was the resident manager and the security manager at Capilano Mobile Park in North Vancouver, B.C., and had asked Mr. Mastin, a visitor to the property, to leave. Mr. Mastin had arrived after 11:00 p.m. when visiting hours ended, hoping to serve his former common-law partner with documents relating to legal proceedings. Mr. Wright understood that a restraining order restricted Mr. Mastin’s contact with his former partner, and suggested that Mr. Mastin ask the West Vancouver Police to help with service. Mr. Mastin appeared to leave the property.
 When shortly afterwards Mr. Wright heard a woman screaming for help and went to assist, he found a woman trying to hide or protect herself from Mr. Mastin. Mr. Wright told Mr. Mastin that he was trespassing, laid hold of his sweater, arrested him, and tried to call the police on a cellular telephone.
 Mr. Mastin then kicked out Mr. Wright’s feet, and inflicted several blows that knocked Mr. Wright to the ground. He then fell on top of Mr. Wright and hit Mr. Wright about the head, before shouting at the woman and leaving the park.
 Mr. Wright suffered lacerations and soft tissue injuries, as well as a fracture of his left ankle that has left him with ongoing pain and limitations. He claims damages under numerous heads, including for the loss of his advantageous live-in employment at the Capilano Mobile Park.
 On September 29, 2008, I granted Mr. Wright’s application that Mr. Mastin’s statement of defence be struck as an abuse of process for purporting to re-litigate a matter already judicially determined. Representing himself that day, Mr. Mastin agreed that the Honourable Judge Diebolt, after a trial, had convicted him of the criminal offence of assault in relation to the same events as described in this action. Mr. Mastin’s statement of defence in this action relied entirely on self-defence, a defence rejected in the criminal trial.
 This trial was then to address only the quantification of Mr. Wright’s damages. Given the substantial amount claimed, Mr. Kazimirski fairly suggested that Mr. Mastin have an opportunity to reconsider retaining counsel. The trial adjourned until November 24 and 25, 2008, dates peremptory on Mr. Mastin, to give Mr. Mastin an opportunity to seek legal assistance.
 Mr. Mastin did not appear on those dates. Mr. Kazimirski advised that efforts to contact him since September 29 had been unsuccessful, and that neither Mr. Mastin nor anyone representing him had been in touch.
 The trial proceeded in Mr. Mastin’s absence.
 After I reserved judgment on November 25, 2008, I directed a memorandum, dated December 8, 2008, to Mr. Kazimirski, for Mr. Wright, and Mr. Mastin, concerning the sufficiency of Mr. Wright’s pleadings to support his claim for damages for the loosening and loss of several teeth. Mr. Kazimirski provided a written submission in response, dated January 7, 2009. Mr. Mastin did not respond to the memorandum.
THE ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES
 Mr. Wright seeks substantial damages for past and future income loss and for non-pecuniary loss, and modest damages for future dental work and for certain out-of-pocket expenses to date. I will address in turn each of these heads of damage, and the evidence to support them.
(a) Loss of Income and Earning Capacity
Past Income Loss
 Mr. Wright claims that the assault caused him to lose his income and substantial benefits from employment at the mobile park not only during his four-month recovery, but also over most of the period that followed until he found new employment.
 Mr. Wright was 55 years of age at the time of the assault, and had worked at the mobile park for 18½ years, living on the premises as a requirement of his employment. During much of his tenure with the mobile park, he also took other employment, because his shifts with the mobile park were heavily concentrated around the weekend, and allowed for other employment on Tuesdays through Fridays, if Mr. Wright so chose. Most of his other work was in security and investigations.
 After the assault, Mr. Wright’s employment at the mobile park came to an end in the following way.
 The day after the assault, X-rays revealed his left ankle to be broken in three places. The main ankle fracture has now been diagnosed as a non-displaced Type 2 fracture of the left lateral malleolus, into the ankle joint itself. The ankle was placed in a cast, and Mr. Wright was instructed not to walk on the foot for four months.
 Not long before, Mr. Wright had been diagnosed with prostate cancer. He had opted for the least invasive treatment by bracheotherapy, without surgery, which would not have required him to take time off work. However, with the ankle injury from the assault, and the need to stay off the foot for four months, Mr. Wright decided to undergo surgery instead of bracheotherapy for his prostate cancer. His convalescence from surgery would then coincide with his four-month recovery from the ankle injury. To that end, he arranged to undergo a prostatectomy in Ontario and to convalesce there at the home of his sister, who is an experienced orthopaedic nurse.
 Mr. Wright accordingly spent July and August 2006 in Ontario, returning to British Columbia on September 14, 2006. While he was in Ontario, he was given an aircast for his ankle, which he understood could be removed about a week after his return to British Columbia. He understood that the removal of the aircast would mark the end of the four-month period of no walking after the fracture.
 Mr. Wright’s family physician, Dr. John S. Corey, on whose expert testimony and report Mr. Wright relies, testified that the fracture achieved a radiological union in July 2006. However, because the fracture had entered the joint, it was important for Mr. Wright to remain non-weight bearing for a further period, to prevent displacement.
 Mr. Wright expected to resume his employment with the mobile park after the four-month period of no walking. He testified that he met with his employer on September 15 and advised the employer that he would return to work on October 8, when he was medically cleared to do so. However, when he reported for work on that date, he found that one of the workers who had replaced him in his absence to be still working in his position. A dispute arose, some hostility developed, and Mr. Wright was plainly told that the workers hired to replace him and his colleague (who had, in the interim, had a stroke) wished to remain, and that Mr. Wright no longer had a position.
 At first, the employer offered Mr. Wright a period of free residence at the park in place of severance pay. However, as the hostilities developed, the employer withdrew that offer.
 Mr. Wright declined to pay the necessary fees for continuing to live in the mobile park or to move away from the mobile park, and was served a notice of eviction. Court proceedings followed, and Mr. Wright was required to leave the mobile park by the end of July 2007. He testified in the trial that he had difficulty making arrangements to remove his mobile home, and was unable to leave until the end of August 2007.
 Mr. Wright felt he could not afford to remain in Vancouver, and moved to Salmo, in the Kootenay area of British Columbia, equidistant between Nelson, Castlegar, and Trail. He attempted to purchase property on which to place his mobile home. However, the purchase did not succeed and resulted in litigation, as a result of which Mr. Wright has a judgment entitling him to the return of his $25,000 deposit. At present, Mr. Wright lives in a travel trailer in Salmo in difficult living conditions.
 Mr. Wright was not successful in securing employment before his move to Salmo. However, he received Employment Insurance (EI) benefits from shortly after the agreed last payment from Capilano Mobile Park in August 2006, until February 2007, and in February 2007 took an EI-sponsored “Transitions” program to help him move toward suitable alternative employment. Mr. Wright has a deep background in security and investigations, having trained as a police officer in Toronto and worked there as a police constable for six years before moving on to other security and investigations positions in Ontario and, beginning in 1987, the Vancouver area. However, since the assault, Mr. Wright has felt that his continuing intermittent ankle pain has prevented him returning to work in security or investigations, because the terms of employment require extensive walking and sometimes running. Mr. Wright explained that he is very cautious about using his ankle, because he is afraid of turning and re-injuring it.
 Through the Transitions program, Mr. Wright identified professional truck driving as an alternative career that he could manage with his ankle injury. He obtained funding from the Federal Government to participate in a training program in October and November 2007, and obtained his Class 1 driver’s licence, qualifying him to drive any type of vehicle (Mr. Wright already has a motorcycle driver’s licence). Mr. Wright then began a training course with DCT Chambers, a freight company in Castlegar, British Columbia, and began employment with that company on January 16, 2008 as a transfer truck driver.
 Mr. Wright left DCT Chambers on September 19, 2008, expecting to move to another company where he would have performed similar work. However, the employment fell through, because, Mr. Wright understands, it would have contravened an agreement between the companies not to hire away from each other. Mr. Wright has accordingly been seeking employment since September 19, 2008.
 On the basis of the history I have outlined, Mr. Wright claims a gross past wage loss of $65,851.95, reflecting the loss of his wages and benefits as set out below:
 The lost wages and benefits are based on the $33,757 Mr. Wright reported in 2005 as his income from the mobile park, together with a total value of approximately $15,000 per year for his numerous non-wage benefits flowing from the requirement of his employment that he live on the property (notably free rent, utilities, and cell phone).
 I noted earlier that Mr. Wright received EI wage loss benefits from September 2006 to February 2007. Bracchi v. Roberts (1990), 51 B.C.L.R (2d) 257 (S.C.) makes clear that Employment Insurance benefits are not deductible from an award for past wage loss, because they are a collateral benefit for which the plaintiff has paid.
 The medical evidence establishes that Mr. Wright could not perform his normal duties in the four-month recovery period after the assault. However, even on Mr. Wright’s necessarily unchallenged evidence, it appears that the loss of his employment at the mobile park resulted only in part from the assault and its effects, and that other independent factors were also at play.
 In particular, the history, as a whole, of Mr. Wright’s association with the mobile park strongly suggests that the employer used the opportunity of Mr. Wright’s injury and his absence to replace him and, in due course, terminate his employment for reasons unrelated to the injury.
 I note in this regard the difficulties that arise from Mr. Mastin’s failure to participate in the trial. Mr. Wright’s testimony stands unchallenged, untested, and uncontradicted. Mr. Wright should not bear the consequences of Mr. Mastin’s choice not to participate in the trial. However, at the same time the trial must be a fair one and the fact that Mr. Wright’s evidence is not expressly challenged does not require that it always be taken at face value. Although I find Mr. Wright to be a sincere and honest witness, in my assessment, certain weaknesses in his own perspective on the events affect the extent to which his evidence may be relied on as a complete rendition of the relevant facts.
 Mr. Wright explained that a few days after the assault, he and the employer agreed that Mr. Wright would not file a Worker’s Compensation claim in respect of the assault, and instead the employer would pay Mr. Wright’s salary until August 8 and would provide him with a Record of Employment so that he could then claim medical benefits under the Employment Insurance scheme. Mr. Wright testified that when he received a Record of Employment dated August 8, 2006 while he was in Ontario, he was surprised that it included holiday pay and was accompanied by a letter suggesting that his employment had come to an end. He testified that he therefore telephoned the employer to ask what the letter meant, and was assured that he could return to the job, despite the language of the letter. The letter was not placed into evidence.
 Mr. Wright’s employer at the mobile park was not called to testify. Nor did any other evidence confirm Mr. Wright’s testimony that the employer expected Mr. Wright to return, after four months, to his employment, either at the time of the telephone call, after Mr. Wright received the Record of Employment, or when Mr. Wright returned to B.C. and his home in the mobile park, and spoke to the employer about returning to work.
 If the employer did understand, as Mr. Wright testified, that Mr. Wright intended to return to work, then it appears that, for the employer, factors other than Mr. Wright’s ankle injury were at play when he denied Mr. Wright his former position when he tried to return to work on October 8, 2006. Even if the employer was wrong to seize an opportunity to replace Mr. Wright -- and the evidence is insufficient to permit a finding either way -- this suggests a strong possibility that even without the assault Mr. Wright’s employment with the mobile park would have in any event been terminated if a similar opportunity presented itself to the employer. The post-October 8 developments involving Mr. Wright and the employer reinforce this conclusion, because they provide some indication of the relationship between them.
 If, on the other hand, the loss of employment resulted from an innocent misunderstanding about Mr. Wright’s intention to return to his employment, it was a misunderstanding that Mr. Wright could reasonably have avoided by better communication with his employer during his absence from B.C. and after his return. The need for clear communication was particular acute, since Mr. Wright had left the province and had requested a Record of Employment, which is usually associated with the termination of employment.
 I conclude that without the assault, Mr. Wright would likely have retained his job. However, I would recognize a significant possibility that, even without the assault, his job would have come to an end within the short to mid-term future, and I will quantify that possibility at approximately 30%.
 In addition, Mr. Wright failed somewhat in his duty to minimize his loss, particularly in the early days. After it became clear that Mr. Wright had lost his job with the mobile park, he made relatively few applications for alternative employment until after he had completed the Transitions program. He testified that between October 2006 and February 2007 he applied for a total of three positions as a resident manager of marinas, but gave no explanation for why he made so few applications and why he applied for no other types of jobs. One can well imagine numerous types of employment that would likely accommodate Mr. Wright’s ankle limitation as easily, or more so, than his former position at the mobile park.
 Also, Dr. Corey identified Mr. Wright’s weight as contributing to his ankle problems, and advised him to lose weight. Mr. Wright testified that he has gained about 45 pounds since the assault. He attributes the gain to his reduced walking and to poor eating because of the difficulties with his teeth, but I conclude that he could have done more to control his weight, as Dr. Corey advised, and thus to reduce his ankle problems.
 A defendant bears the onus of proving a plaintiff’s failure to mitigate, and Mr. Mastin’s lack of participation in the trial left unchallenged Mr. Wright’s account of his history after the assault. I note also that Mr. Mastin’s short, hand-written, and now struck Statement of Defence made no reference to lack of mitigation or any other form of defence except self-defence, which the Honourable Judge Diebolt rejected in the criminal trial.
 A plaintiff must nonetheless act reasonably to minimize his or her loss. And, in the present circumstances, Mr. Wright’s failure to adequately do so suggests that some of the consequences he attributes to the assault were avoidable or cannot be entirely assigned to that cause.
 In all the circumstances, the award for lost income will reflect the full amount of lost income during the two months (August 8 – October 8, 2006) when Mr. Wright was unpaid during the four-month recovery period after the assault. It will not reflect the period after September 19, 2008 when Mr. Wright voluntarily left DCT Chambers. The balance of Mr. Wright’s claim in this area will be reduced to reflect the contingency and insufficient mitigation I have mentioned.
 The total award in this area is $16,000.
Loss of Future Earning Capacity
 Mr. Wright is entitled to an award of damages to compensate him for his loss of future earning capacity. There is no formula for how these damages are to be assessed. The valuation of the loss may involve a comparison of what the plaintiff would, without the injury, have earned, with what he or she will probably earn in the injured condition, but the award must also, in its overall effect, be fair and reasonable: Reilly v. Lynn, 2003 BCCA 49, 10 B.C.L.R. (4th) 16, at para. 101.
 Mr. Kazimirski submits that Mr. Wright’s damages for loss of future earning capacity should be assessed by reference to a ten-year reduction in his capacity to work, because he will be unable to work as a truck driver beyond about age 65, whereas with the RV park he would have worked through to age 75. On that basis, and assuming an annual income (wages and non-wage benefits) of approximately $50,000 per year, Mr. Wright seeks an award of $250,000, representing approximately $500,000 of lost income, with a deduction of 50% to allow for various contingencies.
 In my view, the likelihood that Mr. Wright would have continued working to age 75, even in his employment at the mobile park, is small indeed. Although the work allowed ample free time during the week, it required very long hours on the three days he did work: from 9:00 a.m. (or 8:00 a.m. in the busy season) each Saturday and Sunday until 2:00 a.m. the following day, and on Monday from 5:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. on Tuesday. The very fact that Mr. Wright could not work at all for four months after his ankle injury demonstrates that the work involved some physical demands, even if, as Mr. Wright testified, he could have performed some of them by, if necessary, driving through the mobile park, rather than walking as was his preference. Even at the rate of three very long days per week, the work would be difficult to sustain through to age 75.
 The fact that a co-worker continued until age 74, when he had a stroke, is of limited assistance, because there is no evidence as to the previous state of that worker’s health. Mr. Wright is, in his appearance, older than his actual years; I would not readily conclude that he is of average general health or better.
 Mr. Wright’s prostatectomy appears to have been successful; however, as he testified, he has not yet reached the five-year mark at which he can be confident that the cancer is defeated.
 Although for all these reasons Mr. Wright has not established that without the assault, he would have worked to age 75, he has established a loss of future earning capacity. The types of employment available to him now are restricted by the ongoing limitations of his ankle injury.
 A fair and reasonable award for Mr. Wright’s loss of earning capacity is $20,000.
(b) Future Cost of Care
 During the assault, Mr. Mastin hit Mr. Wright about the face and head, causing bruising and lacerations at the time. Those have healed, but the blows loosened several of Mr. Wright’s teeth. While he was with his sister in Ontario in July and August 2006, Mr. Wright lost three teeth. A fourth tooth is now very loose and about to come out.
 Mr. Wright claims the cost of repairing his teeth, at approximately $3,200 per tooth, for a total cost for the four teeth of $12,800.
 After I reserved judgment, I was concerned that Mr. Wright’s pleadings may not support his claim for damages for loss of or damage to his teeth, and accordingly caused the memorandum, to which I referred earlier, to be sent to the parties. Mr. Kazimirski responded with written submissions.
 I am now satisfied that even though the statement of claim does not refer specifically to the loss of or damage to Mr. Wright’s teeth, that damage falls properly within the effect of the injuries described as “numerous lacerations, abrasions and contusions”.
 The award for Mr. Wright’s future care will be $12,800.
(c) Special Damages
 Mr. Wright claims the following out-of-pocket expenses:
 The first of the indicated expenses should be fully reflected in the award. The other expenses arose in part from factors I have already discussed, as well as from Mr. Wright’s inability or unwillingness to come to terms with the park’s owner about remaining there. These should be compensated only in part.
 The award for special damages will be in the amount of $2,500.
(d) Damages for Non-Pecuniary Loss
 Mr. Wright seeks an award of $85,000 for his non-pecuniary loss, to reflect both the immediate results of the assault, and their long-term effect on his functioning and activities.
 He refers to his chronic ankle pain, which he submits will likely be of indefinite duration. Dr. Corey attributed Mr. Wright’s ongoing ankle difficulties to post-traumatic arthritic changes in the left ankle, or soft tissue injuries to the structures around the ankle, or a combination of both. In his report, Dr. Corey was optimistic that long-term effects would be few:
I expect that long-term, the patient will have ongoing intermittent pain in his left ankle, though it should not greatly interfere with his day to day activities, employment and or recreational activities.
However, in his testimony, Dr. Corey described this prognosis as a “hope” rather than a confident prediction, and noted that if the ankle injury were going to completely heal, it would have done so by now.
 Mr. Wright testified that he still experiences intermittent pain in his ankle. He tires more easily than he did, and has had to greatly reduce his walking for relaxation, enjoyment, and keeping fit.
 Mr. Wright submits that the applicable case authorities suggest a range between $60,000 and $85,000 for damages for non-pecuniary loss. He submits that his damages should fall toward the upper end of the range, to reflect not only the effects of his ankle injury but also the loss of his teeth, and associated inconvenience and embarrassment. Mr. Wright also sustained lacerations and bruising to his face and arms, but the effects were short-lived.
 In most -- possibly all -- of the cases on which Mr. Wright relies, the plaintiff suffered a much wider range of injuries.
 In Tom v. Troung, 2003 BCCA 387, 16 B.C.L.R. (4th) 72, for example, the award of $80,000 in non-pecuniary damages reflected not only an ankle fracture, but also numerous soft tissue injuries, lacerations and abrasions, injuries to the plaintiff’s teeth, and chronic neck pain.
 In Keshavji v. Jabri,  B.C.J. No. 1866 (S.C.), the award of $50,000 in non-pecuniary damages reflected not only an ankle fracture, but also numerous other injuries which together left the plaintiff in constant pain and unable even to stand for long enough to cook a full meal.
 In Daniels v. Westfair Foods Ltd., 2005 ABQB 746, an award of $50,000 for non-pecuniary damages was based on the plaintiff’s main injury of a left ankle fracture in three places. That fracture had somewhat more serious effects for the 77-year old plaintiff, who underwent ankle surgery and had a metal plate and some screws permanently affixed. The plaintiff was in a wheelchair for approximately four months, unable to walk for about a year, and even at the time of trial unable to stand for very long.
 In Przelski v. Ontario Casino Corp.,  O.J. No. 3012 (S.C.J.), the award of $60,000 in non-pecuniary damages was based mainly on the plaintiff’s ankle fracture. By the time of trial, the plaintiff suffered some degree of daily pain and ankle swelling, but had been able to resume most of her normal activities, although sometimes with pain and swelling.
 The cases on which Mr. Wright relies all involve accidents, and not deliberate assaults. I take into account that the trauma associated with a deliberate assault on one’s person is necessarily more distressing. Also, Dr. Corey testified that the trauma of the assault and the more minor injuries (bruising and lacerations) can slow the healing of an ankle fracture. At the same time, Mr. Wright’s weight increase, which was within his control, must also have contributed.
 In all the circumstances, I conclude that a fair and reasonable award for non-pecuniary losses is $35,000.
 Damages are awarded as follows:
“H. Holmes, J.”
Colin Peter Mastin
Before: The Honourable Madam Justice H. Holmes