This case raises questions about when an assignment order can be made of SABs paid “in respect of expenses for health
care” under the current legislation.
(2) The trial judge’s determination
 After a trial in which the majority of evidence was about
Ms. Carroll’s future care requirements, including medical and
rehabilitation benefits, and attendant care benefits, the jury
awarded the appellants $4,083,000. The answers provided to the
jury questions identified Ms. Carroll’s damages. They consisted of
general damages in the amount of $300,000 for pain and suffering, and $3,600,000 for “future care costs”. The jury questions did
not seek further particularization of the “future care costs”.
 Adjusted to account for her contributory negligence, Ms.
Carroll’s net jury award was $186,000 for general damages, and
$2,232,000 for future care costs.
 Aviva and Pilot sought an assignment of the future SABs
Ms. Carroll would receive for health care costs, if they paid the
tort award in full. Although the tort award of $2,610,744.32
exceeded the $2,000,000 in insurance coverage provided by Aviva
and Pilot, payment of that award in full coupled with an assignment of future SABs could reduce Aviva and Pilot’s net liability.
If Aviva and Pilot determined that the outstanding health care
SABs would not exceed the $2 million in combined liability coverage by more than $610,774.32, they would be better off paying
only the $2 million and foregoing the benefits of any assignment
order they obtained. But if they determined that the future
health care SABs payments would exceed $610,744.32, they could
pay the entire award, and then rely on their assignment rights
under the order to reduce their total net obligation by the amount
the SABs exceeded $610,744.32.
 The appellants, not wanting to take the chance that their
net recovery would be diminished by an assignment, opposed the
request. They relied upon the decisions of this court — primarily
Bannon v. McNeely (1998), 38 O.R. (3d) 659,  O.J. No. 1673
(C.A.) and Gilbert — to argue that a trial judge should not order
an assignment of SABs unless the insurers can demonstrate
beyond dispute that the future SABs payments would qualitatively and temporally match the tort damages awarded by the
jury. In other words, it must be shown with certainty that the
SABs and the jury award cover the same kind of health care costs
relating to the same period of loss. They argued that the jury
question did not provide sufficient specificity to meet this strict