Products & Services

Court Testimony from Experts @ BEC

Excerpt from Brodie v. Canada (Attorney General) 2010 ABQB 678, released Nov 1, 2010

The Alberta court has released its decision on the grizzly bear attack case from Lake Louise. The court found that there was "no breach of duty by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs and that the Plaintiffs' claim must therefore be dismissed, with costs." (para. [62]) However, in analyzing quantum (in the event of appeal), Justice Hawco accepted the evidence given by Ms. Brown over the other expert's testimony.


[59] Mr. Hereford's damages for loss of income have been considered by both [the plaintiff's expert] on behalf of Mr. Hereford and Ms. Cara Brown on behalf of the Defendant. [The plaintiff's expert] assumed in his calculations that Mr. Hereford was delayed entry into his chosen profession by six months as a result of the injuries sustained. He calculated that Mr. Hereford was adversely impacted by that six month delay throughout his career. To the date of trial, assuming every year Mr. Hereford would be six months late in advancing up the corporate ladder, [the plaintiff's expert] calculated that his loss would have amounted to $1,035,727 inclusive cf pre-judgment interest.

[60] Ms. Brown gave evidence to the effect that she took into account that Mr. Hereford would have been behind his peers for a certain period of time, but that by year 2001 he would have caught up to them. Her calculation of his losses up to the time he moved to the United Kingdom in 2001 were set at $87,500.

[61] In my view, the lock-step loss calculations of [the plaintiff's expert] do not appear to take into consideration a number of contingencies and, more importantly, do not take into consideration that after a certain number of years, a six-month delay would mean very little, if any, upon his then ability to improve his employment opportunities. Mr. Hereford was obviously an ambitious and successful young man and rose rapidly within his chosen profession. I am not at all satisfied that he would have sustained any losses beyond the year 2001. I accept Ms. Brown's calculations and analysis in that regard.

[62] In conclusion, I find that there was no breach of duty by thc Defendant to the Plaintiffs and that the Plaintiffs' claim must therefore be dismissed, with costs.