2. Ms. Kirker
¶ 627 Ms. Kirker advises that in the event the Plaintiff relocates to a situation where home repairs are required, the average cost of these services would be $25.50 per hour. In Ms. Kirker’s view the handyman services would not cover yard work but rather indoor and outdoor maintenance repairs. I agree. Ms. Kirker recommends a yearly allowance of $382.50 based on 15 hours of service for strictly home repairs. I agree that this is a more realistic estimation of hours required for home repairs.
¶ 628 I approve of the annual home repair service as recommended by Ms. Kirker, commencing in January of 2002.
– Yard Maintenance
1. Ms. Kirker
¶ 629 Ms. Kirker was of the view that assistance for yard maintenance is not required at this time as the Plaintiff is living in an apartment but assistance would be required for outdoor maintenance activities if the Plaintiff relocates to a home as opposed to a condominium or another apartment. In Ms. Kirker’s view an alternate method to provide for these services would be to hire an agency to perform outdoor maintenance activities such as lawn care and snow removal. Year round outdoor maintenance activities in the Edmonton area would be approximately $110 per month or $1,320 per year.
¶ 630 I am persuaded that as it is the intention of the Plaintiff to move into her own home, yard maintenance and snow removal will be required. I agree that an agency service would be the most appropriate method of delivery of the service. I allow $1,320 annually commencing at the time I have acknowledged that the Plaintiff will relocate to a house, namely January of 2002.
– Nanny
¶ 631 Dr. Geisler is of the view that if the Plaintiff has tenodesis surgery, she would be perfectly capable of doing all and everything for her children as might be necessary as they grow and mature, including feeding, breastfeeding or bottle feeding, changing their diapers and bathing. Tenodesis surgery involves the cutting and straightening of the tendons and muscles in the hands and is considered to be a radical high risk procedure which may or may not be successful.
1. Ms. Lancaster
¶ 632 Even though Ms. Lancaster was of the view that a physician could best address this issue, her understanding is that in the Plaintiff’s present condition she could not look after a child. Without the surgery the Plaintiff would require a nanny. Ms. Lancaster testified that caregivers for individuals with quadriplegia do not provide services for children just as they do not provide homemaking (2459). Ms. Lancaster opined that the Plaintiff would need someone to look after her children as she could not provide for their physical care, particularly for the period when they were newborn to school age (2459).
¶ 633 Ms. Lancaster opined that the average family size includes two children born two years apart. Ms. Lancaster recommended that a nanny be hired for a ten year period. However, Ms. Lancaster testified that a nanny usually remains with a family for a period of two years and a $500 placement fee is required every time a nanny is replaced. The placement fee will be required every two years for ten years. Ms. Lancaster envisioned that a room would be provided for a nanny in the Plaintiff’s home.
¶ 634 Further to her consultations with Children’s Choice Nannies in Edmonton, Ms. Lancaster advised that three nannies should be made available to allow for 24 hour care. Children’s Choice Nannies quotes a cost of approximately $3,450 per month for 24 hour nanny care (this does not include the employer’s portion of Employment Insurance and CPP) (2453), for a total annual cost of $41,400 for a 10 year period.
2. Ms. Kirker
¶ 635 Ms. Kirker testified that if there were a live-in nanny, a deduction of $300 per month for room and board would be made (3117-3118). Ms. Kirker was of the view that there are agencies that provide 24 hour care on a less costly basis than that submitted by Ms. Lancaster (3118).
¶ 636 Ms. Kirker was of the view that the provision of 24 hour care is unnecessary and refers to Dr. Geisler’s June 2, 1995 report where he stated that the Plaintiff “would be perfectly capable of doing all and everything for her children as might be necessary as they grow and mature.” My understanding is that this statement was predicated on the Plaintiff successfully undergoing tenodesis surgery.
¶ 637 When asked if there were other matters that perhaps Ms. Lancaster did not take into account which Ms. Kirker deemed important in the determination of the costs for nanny or child care, Ms. Kirker was of the view that Ms. Lancaster incorrectly assumed that the Plaintiff would have no assistance from a spouse. According to Ms. Kirker, one would think the spouse would be involved to a certain extent, particularly at night or after school (3118). Ms. Kirker submitted that the timing would eventually change because once the children commenced a day program, the nanny services would no longer be required to the same extent (3118).
¶ 638 Ms. Kirker was also of the view that in the event the nanny were sick for a day or two, no relief would be provided and therefore the Plaintiff would have to cope alone (3119). In Ms. Kirker’s view, there is no guarantee that staff would be available at the Plaintiff’s “beck and call” and would typically require 24 to 48 hour notice (3119).
¶ 639 Ms. Lancaster suggested to the Court that paying a fee and utilizing a nanny placement service would be appropriate rather than putting an advertisement in the paper or contacting the Canadian Paraplegic Association because those services would send out a replacement immediately (3118-3119). Further the placement fee was guaranteed for one year provided the nanny remained employed for one year and there would be no subsequent fee (3119).
¶ 640 I am fully aware that without the injury, given the Plaintiff’s career aspirations, she would have had to retain the services of a nanny, however, not to the extent now required because of her disability. My award is based upon the Plaintiff’s current condition, not what “may” occur if tenodesis surgery is performed and is successful. Given that this surgery is radical, high risk and may not be successful the outcome is speculative at best. However, I must also take into account the fact that the father of the children will assume certain parental responsibilities. For that reason 24 hour nanny care is not justifiable.
¶ 641 Accordingly, I award the cost of a nanny service for two children born two years apart for an eight year period, working normal hours and with a credit of $300 per month for room and board. If, given these parameters, the parties cannot agree as to a cost, they are at liberty to come back before me within 30 days.
– Physiotherapy
1. Ms. Lancaster
¶ 642 Ms. Lancaster testified that the Plaintiff will physically change over her lifetime. As a result so will her needs. She will consequently encounter different health problems with the passage of time (2458). A physiotherapy program is recommended, consisting of stretching and exercise for enhancing cardiovascular and muscle strength. Current physiotherapy is covered by the Regional Health Authority in Alberta and is made available to the client free of charge. Ms. Lancaster provided for extra physiotherapy (2458) because although physiotherapy is covered under the current health care program, she believes that there is often a disparity between what is needed and what is covered. Further, some clinics charge a user fee of $5 per hour. Accordingly, she provided an allowance of $100 a year (2458).
2. Ms. Kirker
¶ 643 Ms. Kirker opined that the Plaintiff has not used the services of a physiotherapist to monitor her program and finds it unlikely she would attend therapy on a monthly basis in the future. As to the Plaintiff’s exercises and fitness, Ms. Kirker was of the view that the Plaintiff could consult the Rick Hanson Centre or the extension at the school she is attending (3116). In the event the Plaintiff elected to use a physiotherapist, Ms. Kirker suggests that she could be seen every six months for an update if necessary.
¶ 644 I am mindful that Dr. Geisler’s report of June 2, 1995 opines that it is unnecessary to have a physiotherapist attend the Plaintiff once a week. Rather, a monthly visit to her physiotherapist would be sufficient. Also, given the Plaintiff’s past history since the accident and the fact that I have awarded a health club membership fee of $80, I am not persuaded that this allowance as prescribed by Ms. Lancaster is necessary. It is accordingly denied. However, I do accept Dr. Geisler’s recommendation for a monthly visit to her physiotherapist. If this is not covered by Alberta Health Care, then this cost is awarded to the Plaintiff on an annual basis.
– Van
1. Ms. Lancaster
¶ 645 The Plaintiff is currently driving a 1991 Ford van adapted through Golden Boy Medical at a cost of $28,000. The van was purchased by the Plaintiff’s parents and is equipped with hand controls, remote start, wheelchair tie down, swing away lift, a lowered floor and a bench at the back. According to Ms. Lancaster, the vehicle is not entirely satisfactory to the Plaintiff as she had several frightening incidents in which her wheelchair tie-down let go and she found herself sliding towards the back of the van while driving (2423). However, the Plaintiff, in her testimony, indicated this was the result of her error where twice she neglected to properly secure the tie-down.
¶ 646 Ms. Lancaster was of the view that this van will require replacement every seven years. According to Ms. Lancaster the cost of a new van averages $30,000.
¶ 647 Ms. Lancaster advised that the Plaintiff has investigated purchasing either a 4 x 4 truck or a Suburban-type vehicle which would give her greater visibility than driving a van. According to Ms. Lancaster the Plaintiff makes the point that she does not want to be restricted to one type of vehicle because of her disability but rather would like to have a reasonable choice to the same degree as would any person who was not disabled (2424). Ms. Lancaster advises that this cost range is $30,000 to $45,000 and adopted an average cost of $37,500.
¶ 648 Dr. Geisler was of the view that a van would certainly accommodate the Plaintiff’s needs and was an appropriate source of transportation for those with disabilities similar to those of the Plaintiff. Dr. Geisler was of the view that the Plaintiff required a van with four proper wheels to get through the snow, an elevating device, hand controls, an air conditioner and a cellular telephone (2035). He was of the view that there was no medical reason why the Plaintiff required a 4 x 4 vehicle instead of a van (2035).
¶ 649 Ms. Lancaster submitted that one must also consider the type of vehicle that the Plaintiff would have purchased as a young woman but for the accident. In Ms. Lancaster’s view it is reasonable to assume the Plaintiff would have purchased a smaller car such as a Neon for approximately $14,000 (2453). In Ms. Lancaster’s view such a figure could be used to calculate a fair and equitable value: that is to say, $37,500 – $14,000 which equals $23,500.
2. Ms. Kirker
¶ 650 Ms. Kirker contacted the Alberta Motor Association (”AMA”) to determine if the average length of time in which an individual owns a vehicle is seven to nine years. Ms. Kirker advised that the AMA did not have any specific data on this at present. However, a recent survey performed by the Canadian Automobile Association indicated that the average person in Alberta replaces their vehicle every 10 years (3100). Based on this information, Ms. Kirker recommended that the cost of the vehicle be calculated with a replacement time of eight years, which is within one year of the replacement time suggested by Ms. Lancaster.
¶ 651 Ms. Kirker indicated that it is not reasonable to allocate the entire cost of a full sized van as a disability-related cost when the Plaintiff would have incurred some costs for the purchase of a vehicle in any event. The Plaintiff reported that her current van meets her transportation needs and did not report any desire to have an alternate type of vehicle as submitted by Ms. Lancaster. Ms. Kirker opined that the visibility in a truck or suburban may not be that much greater than in a van, depending on the type of vehicle purchased. Ms. Kirker advises that the base price of a Ford Econoline van is approximately $30,000 whereas the average cost of a vehicle that the Plaintiff would have purchased but for her injury is estimated at $15,000. Ms. Kirker suggests that this amount be deducted from the cost of the van for future vehicles.
¶ 652 Ms. Kirker opines that there is no reason why a van would not continue to meet the Plaintiff’s needs. Ms. Kirker advises that an all wheel drive option can be adapted to a Ford (3102). Ms. Kirker did not provide for the cost of a four wheel drive adaptation in either of her original or rebuttal reports, but testified in Court that the cost would range from between $2,000 and $3,000 (3102).
¶ 653 In the decision of Jacobs v. McLaughlin and Calgary (City) (1986), 71 A.R. 104; 46 Alta. L.R. (2d) 1 (Q.B.) the Court held that only the difference between a specially equipped vehicle deemed necessary because of the injury and the cost of an automobile which the Plaintiff would have purchased but for the injury is recoverable. I allow a net cost for the vehicle of $19,000 with replacement every eight years (a specially equipped van with four wheel drive adaptation of $33,000 less the cost of a “normal” vehicle for $14,000). There was no claim made for annual maintenance as the Plaintiff would have had this responsibility notwithstanding her accident.
¶ 654 Ms. Lancaster also recommended the following adaptations to the Plaintiff’s van valued at $16,150:
1. Rycon power lift – $4,000
2. Yearly maintenance of the Rycon power lift – $400
3. Power door operator to use with platform lift – $850
4. 4-inch partial drop lowered floor in central area of van – $4,000
5. Power wheelchair tie down – $1,850
6. Raised roof for ventilation – $3,500
7. Cutout running board – $150
8. Side entry door – $1,800
– Rycon Power Lift and Elain-Anne Lift
1. Ms. Lancaster
¶ 655 According to Ms. Lancaster, although the Plaintiff is using a Rycon lift that is worth $4,000 new, it is not compatible with either a truck or Suburban-type vehicle and therefore another type of lift system should be considered.
¶ 656 In Ms. Lancaster’s view, and based upon the Plaintiff’s research which Ms. Lancaster confirmed, an Elain-Anne Lift would be the most appropriate lift system for the type of vehicle the Plaintiff will be driving. In Ms. Lancaster’s view this system will allow the Plaintiff to drive independently while seated in her wheelchair as it would prevent her wheelchair from rolling backwards. Ms. Lancaster advises that this feature is not available in the Plaintiff’s current van.
¶ 657 Ms. Lancaster advises that the cost is $33,870 and should be replaced every eight years. Yearly maintenance on the lift is costed by Ms. Lancaster at $3,387.
2. Ms. Kirker
¶ 658 Ms. Kirker found that the Elain-Anne Lift was a financial drawback as its price of $34,000 is almost the same as the entire cost of a vehicle. Further, it also has a high maintenance cost (3101). According to Ms. Kirker, given the high price of the lift for the alternate vehicles suggested, it is unreasonable to expect this additional compensation to address the Plaintiff’s transportation needs when the provision of a van and the current modifications have met the Plaintiff’s needs in the past. Ms. Kirker was advised by the suppliers of the Elain-Anne Lift, that although not many were sold, sales tended to be in northern and rural areas where one had to drive in mountainous areas (3101). I am also mindful of the fact that notwithstanding Dr. Geisler’s vast experience, he knew nothing about the Elain-Anne lift (2036).
¶ 659 Ms. Kirker advised that a wheelchair lift would be required to allow access to the van. The average cost of a wheelchair lift (the “Ricon” or the “Canadian Swing-Away”), including installation, is $5,033.33 (3102). The average replacement time recommended by the suppliers is nine years, however eight years is used for the purpose of Ms. Kirker’s report to avoid any problems associated with re-installation. The average estimated maintenance cost is $183.33 per year.
¶ 660 I am not satisfied that the Plaintiff’s travel to her parents farm warrants an Elain-Anne Lift. Further, as I have awarded the cost of a van which is entirely compatible with a Rycon lift, the Elain-Anne lift is unnecessary to meet the Plaintiff’s needs. Rather I accept Ms. Kirker’s recommendation and approve a wheelchair lift, including installation at a cost of $5,033.33, replaceable every eight years with an annual maintenance cost of $183.33.
– Power Door Operator to Use With Platform Lift
¶ 661 Ms. Lancaster recommended a power door operator to use with the platform lift of $850.
¶ 662 Ms. Kirker does not discuss a power door operator to use with a platform lift.
¶ 663 I allow this cost.
– Door Opener and Rear Switch
¶ 664 Ms. Kirker advises that the estimated costs for the door opener and rear switch is $1,500, with replacement every eight years.
¶ 665 The parties did not advise as to the relation between the power door operator which is used with the platform lift and the door opener and rear switch.
¶ 666 I accept Ms. Kirker’s cost and the replacement every eight years assuming that this mechanism differs from the power door operator.
– Remote Start
1. Ms. Lancaster
¶ 667 Ms. Lancaster prices the remote start at $395 and recommended replacement every two years. The hand controls are costed at $550 and must be replaced every seven years. According to Ms. Lancaster the tri-spinner knob is costed at $100 and must be replaced every three years.
¶ 668 I allow all of these costs with the replacement periods as recommended by Ms. Lancaster.
– Power Wheelchair Tie Down
1. Ms. Lancaster
¶ 669 Ms. Lancaster established the cost at $1,850.
2. Ms. Kirker
¶ 670 Ms. Kirker reported that the average cost of the power tie-down system was $1,100, including installation. I approve the cost at $1,850 replaceable at the same time as the vehicle.
– Lower Floor
1. Ms. Lancaster
¶ 671 Ms. Lancaster provided for a four-inch partial drop lowered floor in the central area of the van at a cost of $4,000.
2. Ms. Kirker
¶ 672 In order to accommodate the Plaintiff’s seated height in the vehicle, Ms. Kirker advised it is likely that the vehicle’s floor will need to be lowered. According to Ms. Kirker, the estimated average cost is $4,550, a cost incurred every eight years with vehicle replacement.
¶ 673 I accept Ms. Kirker’s recommendation and approve the cost of $4,550, to be incurred every eight years to coincide with vehicle replacement.
- Raised Roof for Ventilation, Cut Out Running Boards and
Side Entry Door
¶ 674 Ms. Lancaster opined the following costs:
i. Raised roof for ventilation $3,500
ii. Cut out running boards $ 150
iii. Side entry door $1,800
¶ 675 Ms. Kirker made no submission. I approve the costs, replaceable at the same time as the vehicle.
– Cell Phone
1. Ms. Lancaster
¶ 676 Both experts recommend a cellular telephone but differ in their assessment of the cost. According to Ms. Lancaster, the Plaintiff currently uses a cell phone to enable her to call for assistance in the case of a roadside emergency. This phone was purchased by Mr. Conquest who pays the monthly usage fee. Ms. Lancaster advises that currently under the CanTel Amigo plan cellular phones are available at $29.99 per month and include free weekend and evening calling. Ms. Lancaster advised that the system licensing fee for one year is $48 and is paid on a yearly basis.
2. Ms. Kirker
¶ 677 Ms. Kirker recommends that a cellular telephone be purchased at an estimated cost of $200, with replacement recommended every five years. It is suggested that the Plaintiff subscribe to the current Lifestyle plan at a cost of $19.95 per month, for a yearly total of $239.40, which includes the yearly licensing fee. There would be an activation fee of $48.
¶ 678 Clearly there is a demonstrable need for the Plaintiff to have a reliable cellular phone. I will allow the cost of a cellular telephone at $200 and $408 annually for usage ($30/month and an annual licencing fee). I am certainly cognizant of the fact that the technology in this area is rapidly changing. Therefore, the first replacement will occur in three years and every five years thereafter.
– Membership with the Alberta Motor Association
¶ 679 Ms. Lancaster and Ms. Kirker provide for a membership with the AMA to provide service in the event of emergency. Ms. Lancaster priced the current cost at $45 per year and indicated that there is a one-time initiation fee of $12. Kirker, on the other hand, advises that the cost of $45 is not current, the current price at the time of trial being $48.
¶ 680 Once again the experts agree that an AMA membership fee is necessary. I approve the initiation fee and the annual membership fee. It escapes me why the experts could not have agreed on this figure. I would ask counsel to call the AMA together to secure the current 1998 membership fee and the cost of the one time initiation fee, if any. They should also ascertain what is the forecasted annual increase for such membership fee.
– Handicapped Parking Placard
¶ 681 Both Ms. Lancaster and Ms. Kirker recommend a handicapped parking placard to be obtained from the AMA at a cost of $5.35. Ms. Lancaster advises that the placard is to be replaced yearly whereas Ms. Kirker submitted that it be replaced every five years. Again all counsel need do is call the AMA together and secure the cost and the replacement requirement given the discrepancy noted by the experts’ evidence.
– Clothing
1. Ms. Lancaster
¶ 682 Ms. Lancaster provided for adaptive clothing made for disabled persons which allows for easier dressing and undressing and ease of movement. As well, due to the wear and tear of the Plaintiff’s clothing caused by wheelchair usage, Ms. Lancaster opines that the Plaintiff has extra laundry and dry cleaning costs. Ms. Lancaster recommended a clothing allowance of $1,200 per year.
2. Ms. Kirker
¶ 683 Ms. Kirker advised that the Plaintiff indicated that she had to have her jackets modified as they are often too long for the wheelchair. The cost for alterations was reported at $60 and the Plaintiff estimated that three alterations per year are required at a yearly cost of $180 (3296).
¶ 684 Given that the Plaintiff will have more than jackets to modify because she is wheelchair bound and recognizing additional laundry and dry cleaning costs, I approve of the cost recommended by Ms. Lancaster at $1,200 annually.
¶ 685 The Plaintiff reported that she uses a button hook to assist her with fastening buttons. Ms. Kirker advises that this item is available at a cost of $6.30, and replacement is recommended every five years.
¶ 686 According to Ms. Kirker, the Plaintiff finds it useful to use a dressing stick. This item is available at an average cost of $7.45, and replacement is recommended every five years.
¶ 687 I approve the cost for the button hook and the dressing stick as recommended by Ms. Kirker and the replacement time period she has also prescribed.
– Bathing
1. Ms. Lancaster
¶ 688 Ms. Lancaster was of the view that the Plaintiff should have a wheel-in shower. Ms. Lancaster advised that a Kohler Freewell shower, K-12492, is available for $3,655.95. Ms. Lancaster advised that this cost is not included in the cost for wheelchair housing, and replacement would be every 25 years.
2. Ms. Kirker
¶ 689 Ms. Kirker is of the view that prefabricated wheel-in showers are not effective as they tend to crack and are hard to maintain (3112). In Ms. Kirker’s view, the cost of the wheel-in shower, as recommended by Ms. Lancaster, should have been included in the overall cost for the home modifications. Ms. Kirker testified that the trend now is to provide for a tiled wheel-in shower with a non-slip floor surface. Ms. Kirker advises that the cost would be covered by the $60,000 for the home modifications.
¶ 690 I adopt the reasoning of Ms. Kirker. The cost of the wheel-in shower is to be inclusive of the cost of the housing accommodation that I have approved at $60,000. Ms. Kirker made no representations as to the requirement for replacement and, if so required, the cost of such replacement for a tiled wheel-in shower. If replacement is necessary, then it is granted. If the parties cannot agree on an amount or duration, they should be back before me within 30 days.
– Raised Padded Toilet Seat
¶ 691 The Plaintiff uses a padded raised toilet seat for her bowel routine which has not been replaced since the accident. Ms. Lancaster advises that the replacement cost is $82.25 whereas Ms. Kirker estimates the average retail cost at $174.30. Ms. Lancaster is of the view the Plaintiff will likely use a commode chair in the future as well as require the raised padded toilet seat when travelling. Ms. Lancaster recommends replacement every ten years whereas Ms. Kirker recommends replacement every three years. Ms. Kirker advises that in the event the Plaintiff elects to use the commode chair for toileting, the replacement time should be increased as per Ms. Lancaster’s recommendation.
¶ 692 I approve the cost of the padded toilet seat at $174.30 with replacement every ten years because the Plaintiff will have the use of a commode chair.
– Commode Chair
¶ 693 Ms. Lancaster and Ms. Kirker advised that the Plaintiff does not have a quadriplegic commode chair and would benefit from having a commode chair for bathing and bowel routine purposes.
¶ 694 Ms. Lancaster advised that a Chiltren Commode Chair is available from Health Care and Rehab at $1,250 and recommended replacement every six years. Ms. Kirker advises that the average cost for this item is $1,200 and replacement is recommended every ten years as provided by the suppliers.
¶ 695 I approve the cost of a commode chair at $1,200, replaceable every ten years.
– Bath Chair
1. Ms. Lancaster
¶ 696 According to Ms. Lancaster, the Plaintiff has a bath chair for transfer into the shower. Padded bath chairs are available from Sammons at $349. Ms. Lancaster advises that the Plaintiff’s bath chair requires replacement in two years and every five years thereafter. Ms. Lancaster advised that the bath chair would be used for family visits or travelling (2439).
2. Ms. Kirker
¶ 697 Ms. Kirker is of the view that the above cost is high given the retail cost in Edmonton. Ms. Kirker is unclear as to the necessity of this item given the provision for a wheel-in shower and hydraulic bath lift. Ms. Kirker finds that a portable transfer board would be more suitable for travelling purposes.
¶ 698 I am not persuaded of the need for a bath chair given that I have approved the cost of a bath lift and a wheel-in shower. I am again mindful of Dr. Geisler’s testimony that the Plaintiff needs only the commode or bath chair for her showering needs (2037). I agree with Ms. Kirker that a portable transfer board would be more suitable for the Plaintiff when travelling. This item will be dealt with subsequently in this decision.
– Apartment Lever Taps
1. Ms. Lancaster
¶ 699 I am mindful that the lever taps dealt with previously in housing relate only to the cost of the taps in the future wheelchair accessible housing as opposed to the Plaintiff’s current apartment. According to Ms. Lancaster lever taps are required for both the bathroom and kitchen taps in the Plaintiff’s current apartment. This will facilitate greater independence of the Plaintiff with respect to her personal care. Ms. Lancaster advises that the taps are available at Canadian Tire at $49.99 each ($99.98 for two), and do not require replacement.
2. Ms. Kirker
¶ 700 Ms. Kirker is of the view that the lever taps are not required as it is anticipated that the Plaintiff will be moving out of the apartment in the near future. Ms. Kirker advises that if the Plaintiff moves to a wheelchair accessible apartment, then the landlord should give consideration to this type of adaptation.
¶ 701 I accept Ms. Lancaster’s recommendation as to the immediate need and I therefore approve the lever taps at $99.98.
– Apartment Hand-Held Shower Device
1. Ms. Lancaster
¶ 702 I am mindful that the hand-held shower device previously dealt with relates to the new wheelchair housing as opposed to the current housing. Ms. Lancaster advised that a hand-held shower device has been purchased for the Plaintiff’s current apartment. The Plaintiff reported that it was purchased at Revy for $50 (2501). Ms. Lancaster advised that replacement is every ten years. Ms. Kirker is of the view that as the Plaintiff has a hand-held shower at present, it will not need to be replaced.
¶ 703 As the Plaintiff will be moving to wheelchair accessible housing in less than four years no replacement cost is required.
– Bath Lift
1. Ms. Kirker
¶ 704 To allow the Plaintiff to bathe, Ms. Kirker recommends a hydraulic bath lift to assist with transfers. Ms. Kirker advises that the Aquatec Bath Lift is portable and available at a cost of $1,595. The supplier reported that the maintenance for the equipment is very low and did not anticipate that there would be any expenses in this area. The replacement time is reported to be between 10 to 20 years. Ms. Kirker advises that 17 years is the replacement time for the purpose of her report.
¶ 705 Ms. Kirker advised that the Plaintiff enjoys a bath and in her current situation at the apartment she only uses a transfer bench which sits at the top of tub level (3097). With the use of the bath lift, the Plaintiff could be lowered into the bathtub. Ms. Lancaster did not allow for a bath lift.
¶ 706 I accept the recommendation of Ms. Kirker for the bath lift at a cost of $1,595, replaceable every 17 years.
– Grab Bar
¶ 707 Ms. Lancaster and Ms. Kirker provided for a grab bar to be placed near the toilet area to permit easier transfers on and off the toilet (and bathtub (Kirker)). Ms. Lancaster advised that the grab bar is available from Sammons at $42.50 whereas Ms. Kirker found the average retail cost of 24-inch wall bar to be $29.32 and the average installation charge to be $10 per bar. Ms. Kirker suggests an allowance for three grab bars for a total cost of $117.96 ($39.32 x 3). Ms. Kirker advised that she did not find this item in the 1997 Sammons catalogue. Ms. Lancaster opined that this item is required in the Plaintiff’s apartment immediately and should be moved to the Plaintiff’s home in the future. Both experts are of the view that replacement is every 15 years.
¶ 708 I accept Ms. Kirker’s recommendation for three grab bars at $29.32 each and with a $10 installation fee for each bar, with one replacement when she relocates to a house and a further replacement every 15 years thereafter. The former replacement is required as the grab bar constitutes a fixture and cannot be removed.
– Padded Transfer Bath Bench
1. Ms. Kirker
¶ 709 Ms. Kirker provides for this item and advises that the Plaintiff is currently using a padded transfer bath bench in the apartment (3097). According to Ms. Kirker, this type of equipment will not be required if the Plaintiff elects to have a wheel-in shower and a hydraulic lift for the bath. Ms. Kirker opines that a portable bath bench may be appropriate for travelling purposes. The padded transfer bath board is available at a cost of $140 and replacement is recommended every ten years.
¶ 710 I approve of a portable padded transfer bath bench at a cost of $140, replaceable every ten years.
– Foot Brush
1. Ms. Lancaster
¶ 711 Ms. Lancaster advises that the Plaintiff requires a foot brush to help reach her feet for washing purposes. According to Ms. Lancaster, it is available from Sammons at $21. One package of extra sponge tips is required at $6.95. Ms. Lancaster advises that this item is replaceable yearly.
2. Ms. Kirker
¶ 712 Ms. Kirker opines that it is unlikely the Plaintiff would use this item on a regular basis as an attendant would be available to assist with bathing and would be accustomed to bathing the Plaintiff’s lower extremities.
¶ 713 Because of the Plaintiff’s desire to be as independent as possible, I approve the recommendation of Ms. Lancaster for an annual expenditure of $27.95.
– Slip-X Bathmat
1. Ms. Lancaster
¶ 714 According to Ms. Lancaster a Slip-X bathmat (28″ x 17″) is required in the shower to promote safety, particularly for the attendant (2439), and is available from Sammons at $18. Ms. Lancaster advises that this item is to be replaced yearly.
2. Ms. Kirker
¶ 715 According to Ms. Kirker, the Plaintiff will not be standing in the shower as she will be sitting in her commode chair. Ms. Kirker opines that in the event this item is required, it is available at a more economical price when purchased at local retail stores.
¶ 716 The Slip-X Bathmat is for the safety of the attendant and I agree it is necessary. Since the economical price alluded to by Ms. Kirker was not given to the Court, I approve of the $18 expenditure annually as recommended by Ms. Lancaster.
– Long-Handled Back Brush
¶ 717 According to Ms. Lancaster the Plaintiff requires a long-handled back brush which is available from Sammons at $23 and replaced yearly. Ms. Kirker is of the view that this is an unnecessary item as the Plaintiff has managed without it to date and the attendant would be available to assist with bathing. Ms. Kirker submitted that this item would be difficult for the Plaintiff to manage given her upper extremity range of movement.
¶ 718 For the reasons given for the foot brush expenditure, I approve of this annual expenditure of $23.
– Chix Absorbent Cloths
1. Ms. Lancaster
¶ 719 Ms. Lancaster provided for large sized Chix absorbent cloths for cleansing. Ms. Lancaster opined that 16 to 20 are used per day at $0.19 each, at a yearly cost of $1,248.30. Ms. Lancaster advised that the cloths are impregnated with an anti-bacterial solution.
2. Ms. Kirker
¶ 720 Ms. Kirker provided for Wet-Ones as this is what the Plaintiff reported using. Ms. Kirker indicated that the Plaintiff did not advise that she was using Chix absorbent cloths. Ms. Kirker estimated that the Plaintiff uses four dispensers of Wet-Ones in a one-month period, at a unit cost of $3.95, for a yearly cost of $189.60.
¶ 721 I approve an expenditure of $190 for cleansing cloths annually.
– Lubricating Jelly
1. Ms. Lancaster
¶ 722 Once again, there is a disagreement between the experts as to the determination of usage and cost per tube of this item. Ms. Lancaster provided for Muko lubricating jelly (70 g. tub), for catheterization purposes, at $2.10 per tube. According to Ms. Lancaster, the Plaintiff uses five tubes per month at $126 per year.
2. Ms. Kirker
¶ 723 According to Ms. Kirker, the Plaintiff reported she uses a 12-ounce tube of Surgi-lub for her bowel and bladder routines, although she keeps the tubes separate for each routine. Ms. Kirker estimates that the Plaintiff uses one tube every two weeks, and the average cost for one tube is $3.60, for a yearly cost of $93.60.
¶ 724 I approve of an annual cost of $110 for lubricating jelly.
– Savodil
1. Ms. Lancaster
¶ 725 According to Ms. Lancaster Savodil Solution is required for cleaning supplies. Ms. Lancaster advises it is available at $21 per container and one container is required monthly at a yearly cost of $252.
2. Ms. Kirker
¶ 726 Ms. Kirker advises that the Plaintiff did not report using this cleanser.
¶ 727 I approve of a yearly cost of $252 for Savodil.
– Uri Kleen
1. Ms. Lancaster
¶ 728 Ms. Lancaster provided for Uri Kleen which is used as a deodorant and detergent. According to Ms. Lancaster, the Plaintiff uses one monthly at a cost of $25.95 for a yearly cost of $311.40.
2. Ms. Kirker
¶ 729 Ms. Kirker advised that the Plaintiff did not report using this item.
¶ 730 I approve of a yearly cost of $311.40.