|
Damages - Personal Injury. Sanson v. Paterson
In Sanson v. Paterson (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered 'contingency deductions', here from future economic loss and future care awards:(iv) Contingencies
[49] Both appellants submit that the trial judge erred in failing to apply contingency deductions to the future economic loss and future care awards.
[50] At trial, the appellants did not ask for the application of contingencies. It was raised for the first time in Security National’s correspondence of June 22, 2022. In these circumstances, it was open to the trial judge to refuse Security National’s request. Furthermore, it is not an error to decline to adjust for general contingencies: Butler v. Royal Victoria Hospital, 2018 ONCA 409, at para. 11. As for specific contingencies, the trial judge addressed the alleged decline of the respondent’s pre-accident practice, her pro bono work, her participation in continuing legal education and her attempts to return to work. Mr. Milburn testified that he considered contingencies but decided not to apply any. He was not cross-examined on this evidence. There was no evidence from Mr. Soriano on contingencies.
[51] In the absence of any request for contingencies and given the state of the evidentiary record, the trial judge did not err in failing to apply any contingencies. . Sanson v. Paterson
In Sanson v. Paterson (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considers evidence required for 'future care' damages:(ii) Future Care and Housekeeping
[37] The appellants also take issue with the trial judge’s treatment of the future care award and more specifically, the housekeeping costs. The Paterson appellant submits that accurate costing and actuarial evidence was required to provide the necessary arithmetic calculation; there was no physician or medical evidence to support the future housekeeping award of $118,194 to age 80. Both appellants challenge the evidentiary foundation for the award.
[38] We disagree with these submissions.
[39] First, while actuarial evidence may be persuasive evidence that a court may consider along with other evidence, it is not an absolute requirement. See for example, Tanner v. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 57 (Prince George), 1976 CanLII 1083 (BC CA), [1976] 5 W.W.R. 240 (B.C.C.A.), at para. 30.
|
