In s. 267.8(12)(a)( ii), there are no temporal requirements
of the kind suggested by the plaintiff. As a result, it falls to the
trial judge to determine the duration of the assignment based on
the record in the particular matter: see Cobb, at para. 42; and
Fonseca, at paras. 107 and 108.
 Third, the global award of damages for loss of future
income does not preclude me from deciding the relevant issues.
I am, in the circumstances of this case, able to carry out my part
of the division of labour described above.
 Fourth, there is no risk whatsoever that the plaintiff will
be under-compensated for the damages awarded for future loss
of income. The defendant is only entitled to the assignment
requested if she first pays the plaintiff the damages to which she
is entitled for future loss of income ($540,000 ($600,000 x 0.9)).
Once that payment is made, the plaintiff will be fully compensated for her loss of future income.
 At para. 69 of its decision in El-Khodr, the Court of
Appeal highlighted the purpose of s. 267.8 of the Act in balanc-
ing the prevention of under-compensation and the prevention of
The current legislation has codified the “Cox and Carter” approach. The
imposition of the common-law “Cox and Carter” orders under the previous
statutory regimes ensured that no risk of under-compensation was placed on
the plaintiff. Instead of being subject to a deduction from her damage award
for future statutory benefits, the Insurance Act now requires a plaintiff to
hold in trust or to assign any benefits that she receives from her [LTD]
insurer after the trial judgment. These provisions ensure that the plaintiff is
fully compensated by the jury award but limit double recovery by assigning
only those benefits actually received in the future to the tort insurer. If the
plaintiff does not receive any [LTD] payments after trial, she loses nothing
because the tort insurer simply does not recover an offset of the damages
already paid to the plaintiff. That is an important distinction from the pre-
vious regime. Like the “Cox and Carter” orders, the trust and assignment
provisions ensure that no risk of under-compensation passes to the plaintiff,
while also minimizing double recovery.
 I substituted “LTD” for “SAB” in the quote above. The
statements made are equally as applicable to LTD payments as
they are to SAB payments.
 I therefore turn to the record before me.
d) The record
 The defendant submits that the record supports a conclusion that the award of $600,000 for future loss of income reflects
the jury’s assessment of the plaintiff’s loss of future income to at
least age 65. For that reason, the defendant requests that the
assignment of LTD benefits be until the earlier of when the