Products & Services

Court Testimony from Experts @ BEC

Excerpt from Robinson v. Lefebvre

[2005] 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. [79] 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.