[138]     The defendants argue that taking a “robust and pragmatic approach” to causation (see Clements v Clements, 2012 SCC 32; [2012] 2 SCR 181), I should find that Ms. Van’s failure to wear a seatbelt did at least worsen her injuries.  If I do not do so, submit the defendants, it effectively prevents the defendant from ever proving contributory negligence in cases of this nature.  I do not agree.  The expertise available to the defendants to assist in investigating causation was no different from that available to the plaintiff in this or any other case of a motor vehicle collision.

[139]     The “robust and pragmatic approach” commended by the Supreme Court of Canada in Clements is not intended to facilitate an end run around the evidence.  The Supreme Court made it clear in that case that the test for causation remains a “but for” test, and I am quite unable to find on the evidence before me that but for her failure to wear a seatbelt, Ms. Van would not have suffered to the same extent or at all the injuries for which she seeks compensation.  On the contrary, I find that her head, facial and rib injuries, and all of their consequences that are relevant to this enquiry, would have occurred in any event due to the unusual mechanics of this accident.  Like the situation considered by the Court of Appeal in Schenker v Scott, , 2014 BCCA 203, “[g]iven the mechanics of this accident and the nature of the injuries suffered, this is not a case where a seatbelt defence could be made out by relying on common sense inferences” (para 43).