Contents: Selecting the Discount Rate – An Update by Christopher Bruce, Derek Aldridge, Scott Beesley, and Kelly Rathje In this article the consultants at Economica have combined to review the most recent information concerning the “discount rate;” that is, the rate of interest at which plaintiffs are assumed to invest their award. Destruction of evidence […]
Read More...Year: 2001
The awarding of costs and payment of legal fees in a case brought before the Court: is there a potential injustice?
This article shows that there may be a potential injustice due to the tax treatment of an employee-plaintiff versus a corporate-defendant. We show that the costs imposed on a losing employee-plaintiff impose a greater burden than the same level of costs imposed on a losing corporate defendant. This is because the employee-plaintiff must such pay costs with after-tax dollars, but the corporate defendant can use before-tax dollars.
Read More...Destruction of evidence
In this article Christopher Bruce discusses situations in which information required to establish negligence remains in the possession of one of the parties. In the absence of any penalties, a party who believes that this evidence may suggest that he or she should be held liable will have an incentive to destroy the evidence.
The purpose of Dr. Bruce’s article is to develop a model of the legal process that will offer insight into the determination of legal remedies for the destruction of evidence by a defendant. He bases this model on the assumption that the first role of such remedies must be to discourage the defendant from destroying any information that might reasonably be expected to assist the court in the determination of liability.
Read More...Selecting the Discount Rate – An Update
In this article the consultants at Economica have combined to review the most recent information concerning the “discount rate;” that is, the rate of interest at which plaintiffs are assumed to invest their award.
Read More...Autumn 2001 issue of the Expert Witness newsletter (volume 6, issue 3)
Contents: The Deduction for “Expenses Related to Earning Income” in Rewcastle by Christopher Bruce and Derek Aldridge In this article Christopher Bruce and Derek Aldridge discuss the court’s decision in the recent case of Rewcastle v. Sieben. The case concerned an estate claim brought under the Survival of Actions Act. In his decision, Justice Hutchinson […]
Read More...No-Fault Automobile Insurance
In this article Christopher Bruce and Angela Tu Weissenberger respond to a recent paper which recommends that Alberta adopt a no-fault automobile insurance system. In their response, Dr. Bruce and Ms. Tu Weissenberger examine the deterrent effect of tort rules; the high cost of no-fault insurance systems; arguments concerning the role of lawyers; evidence concerning the costs of bodily injury claims; and evidence concerning insurance fraud. They identify several weaknesses in the usual arguments that are made in support of a no-fault regime.
Read More...The Deduction for “Expenses Related to Earning Income” in Rewcastle
In this article Christopher Bruce and Derek Aldridge discuss the court’s decision in the recent case of Rewcastle v. Sieben. The case concerned an estate claim brought under the Survival of Actions Act. In his decision, Justice Hutchinson introduced a new method for calculating the deduction for “expenses directly related to earning income.” In their article Dr. Bruce and Mr. Aldridge summarise Justice Hutchinson’s method and comment on its broader applicability.
Read More...Summer 2001 issue of the Expert Witness newsletter (volume 6, issue 2)
Contents: The Deduction of Accelerated Inheritance by Christopher Bruce In this article Chris Bruce discusses a requirement established by the Court of Appeal in its October 17, 2000 ruling in Brooks v. Stefura. This was that “accelerated inheritances” should be deducted from each plaintiff’s dependency award. The Court did not, however, state clearly what it […]
Read More...Case Comment: Boston v. Boston
The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled in the case of Boston v. Boston. This was a case involving the variation of spousal support at the time of the husband’s retirement. He retired in 1997 and began to receive his pension. He applied to have the original support payment reduced, on the grounds that he was now paying support from his pension, which had already been considered in the original division of assets. It was argued that the wife had traded off her right to half the pension, and in return had received the bulk of the physical and other assets. He succeeded in having the monthly payment lowered from $3,200 to $950, but the Ontario Court of Appeal increased the figure back to $2,000. The husband was appealing that last OCA decision in the Supreme Court.
The SCC’s decision allowed the husband’s appeal and restored the motions judge’s decision to reduce support to $950 per month. This was in my view correct, as it would appear to be unjust that the wife should receive half of an asset at separation, and then be allowed to claim part of the husband’s half of that asset later.
Read More...Avoiding Overlap Between Fatal Accident Act and Survival of Actions Act Claims
This article points out that while the method set out by the Court of Appeal in Brooks v. Stefura does prevent double-recovery, it does not prevent double-payment, that is, the payment of the same dollar to one plaintiff under the FAA and to another under the SAA. The text of the judgment makes it clear that the Court does not wish this to occur. The article suggests a refinement of the Court’s method which would prevent such double-payments. Four detailed examples are provided.
Read More...The Deduction (?) of “Accelerated Inheritance” (Scott Beesley’s view)
In this article Scott Beesley discusses a requirement established by the Court of Appeal in its October 17, 2000 ruling in Brooks v. Stefura. This was that “accelerated inheritances” should be deducted from each plaintiff’s dependency award.
The Court did not, however, state clearly what it meant by “accelerated inheritances,” nor did it specify how those inheritances were to be calculated. In this article, Scott offers some observations that may cast some light on these issues.
Read More...The Deduction of Accelerated Inheritance
In this article Chris Bruce discusses a requirement established by the Court of Appeal in its October 17, 2000 ruling in Brooks v. Stefura. This was that “accelerated inheritances” should be deducted from each plaintiff’s dependency award.
The Court did not, however, state clearly what it meant by “accelerated inheritances,” nor did it specify how those inheritances were to be calculated. In this article, Chris offers some observations that may cast some light on these issues.
Read More...Spring 2001 issue of the Expert Witness newsletter (volume 6, issue 1)
Contents: Estate Claims Following the Appeal Court Decisions in Duncan and Brooks by Derek Aldridge In this article Derek Aldridge, investigates a number of issues concerning the valuation of estate claims under the Survival of Actions Act. These issues arise from two recent decisions of the Court of Appeal, in Duncan v. Baddeley and Brooks […]
Read More...Evidence About “Customary Practice”
In this article Christopher Bruce summarises some recent research that suggests that doctors systematically err when estimating the standards of “ordinary, or common, practice.” In particular, this research finds that doctors overestimate the speed with which patients are treated and diagnosed in emergency rooms. Hence, they systematically bias malpractice suits in favour of plaintiffs.
Read More...Estate Claims Following the Appeal Court Decisions in Duncan and Brooks
In this article Derek Aldridge, investigates a number of issues concerning the valuation of estate claims under the Survival of Actions Act. These issues arise from two recent decisions of the Court of Appeal, in Duncan v. Baddeley and Brooks v. Stefura.
Read More...