Products & Services
Court Testimony from Experts @ BEA
Excerpt from Bisheimer v. Bryce
 S.J. No. 85, (Sask C.A.) [Vancise J.A., Saskatchewan Court of Appeal].Although the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal did not disturb McLellan, J.'s finding of Mr. Steininger's pre-trial loss in the amount of $62,000, it did set aside the future loss of income award of $104,000 and substituted $179,000. The Court of Appeal noted the following with respect to Ms. Brown's evidence on the future loss of income award:
Steininger claims $180,000.00 loss of future income. That amount was calculated by Ms. Cara Brown, an economic consultant. She examined Steininger' employment income for the period 1980 to 1988 to establish an economic framework. His earnings, Unemployment Insurance, and total earnings for the period were as follows:
- Using a base year salary for Steininger of $30,000.00 rather than $52,000.00 and adopting the contingencies set forth in the report filed by the economist I arrive at the following: 30 / 52 x $180,000.00 = $104,000.00 (rounded). Thus he appears to have established a base salary of $30,000.00. However, in calculating the amount of loss he simply took 30/52 of the $180,000.00 and arrived at $104,000.00. With respect the $180,000.00 loss calculated by the economist was predicated upon a base salary of $33,000.00, which was adjusted downward at trial to $29,000.00. The economist applied a further discount fact or for contingencies and a positive inflation factor and arrived at a figure of $29,000.00 for loss of income. She then calculated the discounted value of a sum sufficient to produce this income to age 65 as $179,000.00. The trial judge gave no reasons for determining a base salary of $30,000.00 per annum. However, it would appear from an examination of the evidence that this base salary is based on a composite of the income of Staininger prior to the accident and the evidence of work prospects over the ensuing years. If this the basis for the trial judge's conclusion, then a further contingency factor ought to be applied. There is nothing in the judgment to indicate that the trial judge took into account any negative or adverse contingencies in establishing the base salary. That negative contingency factor is calculated having regard to the fact that in our society adverse contingencies are softened by many private and public income protection schemes, and therefore the loss of income should be scaled to reflect a real loss of income. In my opinion a contingency factor of 4% is appropriate.
- Our own suggestion is that the average for negative contingencies be taken at approximately 7% . . . . We then feel that positive contingencies may be taken as a counterbalance of at least 3%, on the average. We therefore suggest that the figure of 4% be used as a matter of practice, if no particular circumstances are presented at trial to vary that estimate. This Court adopted that position in Joubert and am of the opinion that it should be continued here. The result is that annual income figure is not significantly different from the $29,000.00 annual income used by the economist in calculating the damages as $179,000.00. In the result I fix the damages at $179,000.00, the award of the trial judge is set aside and the sum of $179,000.00 substituted therefore.
 Note that it appears McLellan, J. rejected the pre-trial loss of income calculation because he believed it used a salary of $52,000 but in fact contingencies would have reduced this to $29,000, just as they did in the future loss of income claim. There may be confusion as to the basis for the pre-trial loss of income calculation that was left intact.