In Lines v. Gordon et al. v. ICBC, the Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident, and subsequently brought an ICBC claim for non-pecuniary damages, loss of income, diminished earning capacity, and future care. The Plaintiff was awarded over $3,000,000.00 in damages, the vast majority of which constituted pecuniary damages. One of the issues for the Court to consider was whether or not to order that the damages be paid in a lump sum amount, or by way of a structured judgment. ICBC’S lawyer argued that there should be a structured judgment in place with respect to the awards for diminished earning capacity, as well as future care. Counsel for the Plaintiff argued that a structured judgment would not be in the Plaintiff‘s best interests. The Court would ultimately rule in favor of the Plaintiff.
 One of the main considerations that I must take into account in ordering periodic payments is whether the award would likely be dissipated too quickly absent such an order. Here, there is no such concern. Although the plaintiff concedes that he can no longer manage his own financial affairs, his father, with whom he is very close, has been appointed the plaintiff’s committee. The committee order provides that the plaintiff’s father shall remain as committee until age 70, with the Public Guardian and Trustee assuming committeeship at that point.
 The plaintiff’s father is well-educated, responsible and competent in financial matters. He intends to hire a professional investment counsellor and to invest the plaintiff’s award in compliance with the Trustee Act as directed by the committeeship order. I find that, with these arrangements in place, it is extremely unlikely that the award would be dissipated too early. In this respect, the facts at bar are very similar to those in Yeung v. Au, 2007 BCSC 175, a recent decision of this court. There, Mr. Justice Tysoe declined to order periodic payments, largely on the basis that the plaintiff’s mother, an accountant, had been appointed her committee and would look after her finances; see paras. 7, 21.
 I conclude that, on balance, it is in the plaintiff’s best interests to be awarded a lump sum for future losses rather than periodic payments for either lost earning capacity or future costs of care. I therefore dismiss the defendants’ application under s.54 of the Act for an order for periodic payments.