between the damages awarded and the LTD benefits the plaintiff may receive in the future. The plaintiff places on the defendant the responsibility for the particular jury question.
 The plaintiff submits that in these circumstances, she is
at risk of being under-compensated if the defendant is granted
the assignment requested. For the following reasons, I disagree.
 First, when reaching a verdict with respect to a claim for
damages for loss of future income, a jury is not required to
provide the figures upon which it relies for annualized loss of
income and the number of years over which the loss occurs. The
defendant was within her right to request that, at a minimum,
the jury be given the option to answer the question related to
future loss of income with a global award.
 In paras. 81-86 of its decision in El-Khodr, the Court of
Appeal makes reference to “proper jury questions” and matching
monetary and temporal limits of SABS to damages awarded.
Matching is required for those heads of past and future damages
for which the potential for recovery of SABS exists. The relevant
heads of damages include loss of income, health care expenses
and other pecuniary losses.
 Counsel are required to take steps to ensure that jury
questions are structured in a way that permits the trial judge
to carry out his or her role pursuant to s. 267.8 of the Act
(Basandra, at para. 28). To that end, the questions should separate the past and future claims for each type of collateral benefit
identified in s. 267.8 (Basandra, at para. 28). The separation
required is into the three broad categories of benefits highlighted in El-Khodr (paras. 35 and 84).
 I find that there is nothing improper about the question
posed of the jury in this matter with respect to the claim for
damages for future loss of income. The question meets the criteria for matching established in the recent decisions of the Court
 Second, there is no requirement for temporal matching of
LTD benefits received over time to an annualized amount for
loss of future income. In Cobb, the Court of Appeal concluded
that the total of the SABS received prior to trial, in settlement of
the plaintiff’s entitlement to past and future loss of income, was
to be deducted from the total of the damages awarded for past
and future loss of income. That conclusion was based in part on
the language or wording of s. 267.8(1) of the Act — in particular,
the lack of any distinction therein between pre-trial losses and
post-trial losses. The court concluded that it could not import
temporal requirements that are not included in the Act.