(c) and (e). I find that, in the circumstances of this action, those
factors are not sufficient to support the exercise of my discretion
pursuant to s. 130(2) of the CJA.
iii) Unfairness generally
 The broader and alternative argument made by the plaintiff is that retrospective application of the amendment results in
unfairness to plaintiffs who were injured in accidents that
occurred on or before December 31, 2014. The unfairness is said
to arise because to and including December 31, 2014 insurance
premiums were based on an expectation on the part of motor
vehicle insurers that their insureds had exposure to prejudgment
interest at the rate of 5 per cent on non-pecuniary damages.
 There is no evidence before me as to the extent to which
insurers considered the 5 per cent prejudgment interest rate
when setting premiums. There is also no evidence before me as
to the impact of the amendment on insurance premiums. Evidence from an underwriting or other insurance expert would be
of assistance to the court in considering whether there is a windfall for insurers from premiums calculated and charged prior to
the amendment coming into effect.
 The plaintiff argues that insurers who set premiums
based on a default rate of 5 per cent will now receive a windfall
from any actions commenced before January 1, 2015 and not
resolved as of that date. In the absence of any evidence in that
regard, I am unable to make the finding requested.
 The plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest on the
non-pecuniary damages calculated at the rate of 1.3 per cent
Issue No. 2 — Assignment of Collateral Benefits
 The damages awarded by the jury for economic loss
($600,000) are exclusively for future loss of income. No damages
were claimed for past loss of income.
 At the date of trial, the plaintiff was receiving LTD benefits. The plaintiff is entitled to LTD benefits to age 65, subject to
her continuing to meet the test for ongoing disability under the
terms of the LTD policy.
 The defendant requests an assignment of the plaintiff’s
contractual entitlement to future LTD benefits until the earlier
of when the plaintiff reaches age 65 and the portion of the judgment for loss of income awarded by the jury is exhausted.