<QUALIFIED FOR Non-Earner Benefits after post-accident employment>

1. Applying the test set out in Heath v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2009 ONCA 391, the Tribunal found that in the immediate post-accident period it cannot be said that the plaintiff “engaged in” most of her pre-accident homemaker and recreational activities. Pain prevented her from doing so. In their view, the plaintiff met the criteria for entitlement to the NEB. It remains only to determine the period for which the NEB must be paid.

2. The issue of the effect of post-accident employment was discussed and decided by this court in the case of Galdamez v. Allstate Insurance Company of Canada, 2012 ONCA 508. The trial judge only had the trial decision in that case to consider. Based on this court’s decision in Galdamez, the fact that the plaintiff was employed following the accident does not disqualify her from receiving non-earner benefits if she otherwise qualifies.

3. The trial judge did not err in considering the post accident job not as a disqualifying factor for non-earner benefits as per Galdamez case, but as a point of comparison in the plaintiff’s pre-accident and post accident activities.