Products & Services
Court Testimony from Experts @ BEC
Excerpt from Robinson v. Lefebvre
 ABQB 659
Reasons released by Veit, J. - Ms. Brown's testimony on behalf of defense counsel was
preferred over the other expert in how to assess the loss of income:
para.  In assessing the evidence that has been put before me, I adopt the following
comments made by Ms. Brown:
- it is only in exceptional cases that an individual is tied to one job. Mr.
Robinson's case is not a situation where he should be tied uniquely and exclusively to
employment at Earl's;
- his pre-accident employment history indicates that Mr. Robinson consistently was
earning less than others in his age cohort. In every single year, he was below the average,
and in some years he was far below the average. In those circumstances, it would be overly
optimistic to assume that Mr. Robinson would have achieved the top available wage at Earl's;
- there is a wage gap between a person who has the kind of mild/moderate functional
disability for employment purposes suffered by Mr. Robinson (the inability to cut his toe
nails does not have an impact on his employability) and a fully able-bodied worker.
That wage gap is in the range of 3-6%. In the circumstances here, this results in a probable
yearly deficit for Mr. Robinson in the range of $3,000 - $3,500.