— the plaintiff in Fonseca was awarded $112,496 for loss of future income. The defendant appealed the decision of the trial judge restricting the assignment of LTD benefits to a
period of one year. The defendant also appealed the trial
judge’s decision with respect to the assignment of SABS;
— in Basandra, the issues on appeal were with respect to the
reduction of damages awarded for SABS received prior to
trial, including benefits paid towards future entitlements;
— the defendant in El-Khodr sought an assignment with
respect to future income replacement benefits (SABS)
against the damages awarded for future loss of income. The
defendant also requested an assignment of future SABS
with respect to medication, assistive devices, and profes-
sional services; and
— in Cobb, the collateral benefits in issue included SABS
received prior to the date of trial for past and future income
replacement benefits and matching them to damages
awarded under separate heads for past loss of income and
for future loss of income.
 A number of general principles arise from these recent
Court of Appeal decisions. The principles relevant to the narrow
issue I am required to decide are discussed in the “Analysis” section below.
 In Basandra, reference is made to the “Division of
Labour” between the trial judge and the jury (paras. 19 and 20).
Pursuant to that division, the trial judge is solely responsible to
address the impact, if any, of the plaintiff’s receipt of or entitlement to collateral benefits. That impact is determined pursuant
to s. 267.8, after the jury’s verdict has been rendered.
 I am satisfied, based on the evidence at trial, that as of
the date of the jury’s verdict the plaintiff was in receipt of LTD
benefits. It is clear and beyond dispute that the plaintiff was so
entitled and would remain so entitled for as long as she continues to meet the criteria for total disability pursuant to the relevant policy. The parties did not dispute that issue in argument
 The plaintiff disputes the defendant’s entitlement to an
assignment because of the manner in which the question to the
jury on future loss of income was framed. The plaintiff submits
that I am unable to carry out the temporal matching required