Warning: Attempt to read property "ID" on null in /srv/users/serverpilot/apps/richtertriallaw-production/public/wp-content/themes/richter/archive.php on line 16
When assessing loss of past income and loss of future income in personal injury cases, the courts are called upon to determine the likelihood of hypothetical events. In Grewal v. Naumann, 2017 BCCA 158, the Court of Appeal clarified the law in BC with respect to the standard of proof for hypothetical events, past or future.
The plaintiff in Grewal was injured in a car accident and received a $515,057 judgment after a trial. Prior to the accident, he had been a security guard but had completed several financial planning courses and had intended to enter that career field. The defendants appealed the decision, specifically the $187,434 award for past loss of income earning capacity and $150,000 award for future loss of income.
For the plaintiff’s loss of past income, the trial judge found that the plaintiff would have earned $310,000 in the years between the accident and trial based on statistical calculations about his career trajectory up to trial. For the plaintiff’s future loss of earning capacity, the trial judge found that the plaintiff would have most likely gone on to have a career as a financial planner, and would suffer no loss of income from the accident in that career. The trial judge found there was a small but real and substantial possibility that should the plaintiff be required to seek work outside of financial planning, he might earn less as a result of the injury and awarded $150,000.
The basis of the defendant’s appeal, was that it was not open to the trial judge to make an award for diminished future earning capacity given his finding that the most likely outcome was that Mr. Grewal would have a successful career as a financial planner and that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons justifying his award for diminished future earning capacity.
The appellants position was that the trial judge’s award for the plaintiff’s past loss of income cannot be justified on the facts as found and was not adequately explained in the reasons for judgment. They also argued that once the trial judge had concluded that the plaintiff would have a career as a financial planner, it was not open to him to award him money for a potential loss of earning potential. The defendants proposed that where the plaintiff is attempting to prove a past loss of earning capacity they must do so on the balance of probabilities and not the lesser burden of proof of likelihood as applied by the trial judge.
The jurisprudence in BC with respect to the standard of proof for past loss of income in personal injury cases is unsettled . Two cases previously decided by the court of appeal, Reynolds v. M. Sanghera & Sons Trucking Ltd., 2015 BCCA 232 and Ostrikoff v. Oliveria, 2015 BCCA 351 suggest that the plaintiff must prove past loss of earning capacity on a balance of probabilities as contrasted with the task in claiming future loss of earning capacity, which requires a plaintiff establish a real and substantial possibility of a future event occurring that could result in the plaintiff’s loss of earning capacity
Prior to this case, the Court of Appeal in Smith v. Knudsen, 2004 BCCA 613, rejected that a claim for past loss of opportunity had to be established on a balance of probabilities. Mr. Justice Goepel rejected that proposition in Reynolds and Osterkoff and found that to the extent they state that a past hypothetical event must be proven on the balance of probabilities, they must be regarded as per incuriam, or wrongly decided.
Mr. Justice Goepel affirmed the distinction between future and past hypothetical events set out the Supreme Court of Canada in Athey v. Leonati,  3 S.C.R. 458.
In Athey, the court held that for hypothetical or future events in personal injury, such as how the plaintiff’s life would have proceeded without the accident, are not proven on the balance of probabilities. Instead, the likelihood of the events is simply given weight according to their likelihood. A future of hypothetical possibility will be taken into consideration as long as it is a real and substantial possibility and not speculation.
Mr. Justice Goepel provided the following summary of the law in BC with respect to an assessment of a loss of past and future earning capacity.
“ In summary, an assessment of loss of both past and future earning capacity involves a consideration of hypothetical events. The plaintiff is not required to prove these hypothetical events on a balance of probabilities. A future or hypothetical possibility will be taken into consideration as long as it is a real and substantial possibility and not mere speculation. If the plaintiff establishes a real and substantial possibility, the Court must then determine the measure of damages by assessing the likelihood of the event. Depending on the facts of the case, a loss may be quantified either on an earnings approach or on a capital asset approach: Perren v. Lalari, 2010 BCCA 140 at para. 32.”
Although Mr. Justice Goepel found that the trial judge had correctly stated the law, he found that the trial judge’s assessment of damages with respect to the plaintiff’s potential earnings was fatally flowed in that the award exceeds what he had earned in the past and couldn’t be justified on the facts.
With respect to the trial judge’s findings on the plaintiff’s future loss of earning capacity, Mr. Justice Goepel set aside the award. He found that the trial judge rightly concluded that as the plaintiff was likely to leave his job as a security guard and pursue a career in financial planning, it was likely he would not suffer a reduction in earnings from his injuries. The plaintiff was required to prove that there was a real and substantial possibility that his earnings might be reduced, which may have occurred if he was likely to take other employment instead of financial planning. Mr. Justice Goepel accepted that there was lesser real and substantial possibility that he might leave financial planning and that the award given by the trial judge was too large in light of the small likelihood of it happening.
Grewal provides some much needed clarity to the law in BC with respect to the standard of proof for hypothetical events. This is especially important for anyone practicing in personal injury.
When assessing loss of past income and loss of future income in personal injury cases, the courts are called upon to determine the likelihood of hypothetical events. In Grewal v. Naumann, 2017 BCCA 158, the Court of Appeal clarified the law in BC with respect to the standard of proof for hypothetical events, past or […]
In Lindgren (Guardian ad litem of) v. Parks Canada Agency, 2017 BCSC 721, an injured infant brought a claim after being injured when another car lost control on the icy road and crossed into her family’s car on the trans-Canada highway. The plaintiff named Parks Canada Agency as a defendant for failing to maintain the […]
In Dahl v. South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority, 2017 BCSC 629 a women filed a claim against Translink and Coast Mountain Bus Company for injuries she claims she received during a minor fall while riding the bus. Ms. D claimed for a host of injuries including post-traumatic stress disorder, brain injury, memory loss, problems with […]
In Parker v. Martin, 2017 BCSC 446, a chiropractor was injured while backing out of a parking stall. While he stopped to let a pedestrian walk by, another pickup truck that was also backing up bumped into his vehicle. Although it was a low speed accident, the plaintiff was injured as a result. The plaintiff […]
In Dizon v. Losier, 2017 BCSC 431, a plaintiff was injured after being rear-ended by the defendant. The accident occurred at an intersection with 2 left turning lanes and the plaintiff was attempting to make a left turn. While attempting to make the left turn the light changed to amber and the plaintiff, not believing […]
In Widdowson v. Rockwell, 2017 BCSC 385, a plaintiff was injured walking home from work when he was struck by a heavily intoxicated driver. Prior to the accident, the defendant stopped at Cambie Malone’s bar for drinks where he consumed liquor. He then stopped briefly at his house before continuing on. He was arrested at the […]
In Ross v. Andrews, 2017 BCSC 338, a plaintiff was ordered to pay double costs to ICBC after failing to win in his trial. He was injured in a car accident in Surrey in 2011. After a 15 day trial, a jury determined that the plaintiff had not received any injuries in the accident. Prior […]
In Binette v. Salmon Arm (City), 2017 BCSC 302, a women brought a suit against the city of Salmon Arm after she tripped on a metal traffic sign that was poking out the sidewalk. A crosswalk sign had been severed from its base and had remained in the sidewalk. It was later repaired sometime after […]
In Risling v. Riches-Glazema, 2017 BCSC 252, Ms. R was involved in a car accident and was awarded $622,500 at trial in Supreme Court. Prior to the trial, her counsel hade made an offer to settle with ICBC for $315,000 plus costs and disbursements under Supreme Court Rule 9-1. At a hearing for costs, she […]
Watch this video posted on Facebook by the Daily Mail which shows that a new car could save your life in an accident: Crashing cars What a 1997 car crash looks like compared to now! Posted by Daily Mail on Saturday, February 4, 2017 This video posted on Daily Mail’s Facebook page shows how driving […]
A serious car accident can result in life long chronic pain. Chronic pain is often defined as any pain lasting more than 12 weeks. It is unique in that the pain persists for months or even longer. Chronic pain can be overwhelming and many people feel like they can’t cope. Complications from this type of […]
Maestro Maestro is an interactive touchscreen program used with a big-screen television that has enhanced the way personal injury lawyers present evidence to injuries that cannot be seen by the eye. The user controls diagrams, documents and pictures on the television by swiping his/her fingers across the screen. The control includes cropping, highlighting and sweeping […]
Involved in a car accident? Richter Trial Lawyers | thegoodfirm has created this car accident checklist of things you should keep in mind when you’re involved in a car accident. We suggest that even if you haven’t been involved in an accident, in order to keep yourself prepared, you should print this and keep it […]