In Russell v. Russell, the plaintiff, Tara Russell, sustained multiple injuries in a vehicle collision caused by the defendant, Keith Chiefmoon. The accident occurred on December 24, 2015, in Lethbridge, Alberta, when Chiefmoon, driving in winter conditions, lost control of the vehicle and crashed. Russell, who was a passenger, suffered significant injuries, including a severe right wrist injury, right ankle damage, chronic pain, and psychological impairments such as depression and anxiety.

As part of her claim, Russell sought damages for her inability to perform household tasks, arguing that her injuries prevented her from maintaining her previous housekeeping abilities. She testified that she received help from family members with housekeeping tasks and that she had never paid anyone for assistance. The court examined medical and occupational therapy reports to determine the extent of her impairment and assessed the necessity and cost of third-party or familial assistance with housekeeping tasks.

What the Court Said

Russell received a general damage award of $160,000, with an additional $7,500 for past housekeeping losses. In this case, the court adopted a tailored, two-tiered approach to assessing housekeeping losses. For the period from the collision to trial, the court recognized that Russell was receiving unpaid assistance from family members. As a result, it was appropriate to use a discounted hourly rate - specifically, 2 hours per month at $35 per hour for heavy housekeeping tasks. Then, from the trial date onward, the court shifted to a professional service rate of $60 per hour for the same two hours per month. This contrasts with a recent decision where compensation for past housekeeping losses was set at a modest rate of $20 to $25 per hour (Dirk v. Teows, para. 383).

This method reflected both the reality of her living situation (a modest two‐bedroom apartment where outside maintenance was handled by the landlord) and her actual level of dependency, since she could perform some light tasks herself, albeit less efficiently and with pain. The court reaffirmed that unpaid assistance from family members has economic value and should be compensated, though often at a discounted rate compared to professional services. In contrast, many recent cases have tended to award housekeeping damages as part of general damages without clearly distinguishing between unpaid familial assistance and professional services.

Recent Trends + Takeaways

This case suggests a potential shift in how courts handle housekeeping awards, raising concerns about inflated awards if this approach is widely adopted. Recent years have seen more conservative assessments, often integrating housekeeping losses into general damages or using lower hourly rates. Recent cases have generally kept housekeeping awards lower by using hourly rates closer to $20 to $25 per hour, reducing awards when plaintiffs can still perform some tasks, even inefficiently, and factoring in the likelihood of continued informal family assistance. However, in Russell, the court:

• Distinguished past and future housekeeping losses by recognizing unpaid family assistance at a lower rate while assigning a professional service rate for future needs;
• Used a relatively high rate of $60 per hour, which is on the upper end compared to other cases; and
• Did not impose a strict discounting factor, unlike some past decisions that have more aggressively reduced housekeeping awards when plaintiffs could perform some tasks, even inefficiently or with pain.

The risks of this approach include:

• Higher precedents: Plaintiffs may start receiving higher housekeeping awards as a default, particularly for future losses, potentially leading to an overall increase in personal injury damages;
• Lack of a family assistance discount for future losses: Many past cases assumed that family members would continue to help informally, but Russell breaks from that assumption by awarding compensation based on professional replacement costs.

If Russell signals a broader shift, courts may become more willing to award higher, more structured housekeeping damages, potentially increasing overall compensation in personal injury cases - a significant development for defendants and insurers managing exposure.

The Russell v. Russell decision may lead to higher housekeeping damage awards. Our Insurance Group can help you assess its impact and adjust your claims strategy. Contact Maryam Musbah in Edmonton, Jane Freeman in Calgary, or any member of Field Law’s Insurance Group for assistance.

Link to decision: Russell v Russell, 2024 ABKB 18