Tag: newsletter (volume 6 issue 4)

Selecting the Discount Rate – An Update

Posted on By economica

by Christopher Bruce, Derek Aldridge, Scott Beesley, and Kelly Rathje

This article was originally published in the Winter 2001/02 issue of the Expert Witness.

In the Autumn 2000 issue of this newsletter, we conducted an extensive review of the various methods of measuring the real rate of interest, or discount rate, and presented evidence concerning the movement of those measures over the period 1995-2000.

At that time, we concluded that our best estimate of the long-run discount rate was 4.0 percent. But we added the caveat that, as interest rates in 2000 had deviated significantly from the average of the preceding years, it would be important to maintain a close watch on those rates – to determine whether 2000 was an aberration or whether it represented the beginning of a new trend.

In particular, we concluded that article with the statement:

If bond rates do not rise relative to the rate of inflation in the near future, we will be revising our real rate of interest forecast downward.

The purpose of this article will be to provide five additional quarters (15 months) of data to determine whether such a revision is appropriate.

Revised data

Tables 1 and 2 provide updates of the information contained in Tables 1 and 2 of the Autumn 2000 article. Four changes have been made to the latter tables. First, we have added data for the fourth quarter of 2000 and for all four quarters of 2001. Second, in some cases, the relevant statistical authorities have revised their estimates of the figures we reported previously. In those cases, we have provided the revised figures.

Third, we have added information concerning interest rates on five-year Government of Canada bonds. Finally, in the interest of space, we have omitted the estimates of the real rate of interest that relied on information concerning the “standard” inflation rate.

Table 1

Table 1 reports the “raw” data from which some of the real interest rate figures in Table 2 have been calculated. The first column reports the “core rate of inflation” – a measure of the rate of inflation that removes the effects of change in those components of the price index that often move erratically – such as food, energy, and taxes. It is often argued that this measure offers a more reliable predictor of future changes in prices than does the “standard” measure of price inflation.

The next three columns in Table 1 report the rates of return on Government of Canada 5-year and 10-year bonds and on 5-year Guaranteed Investment Certificates (GICs). The former represent the minimum rates of return that investors can expect on safe investments. The rate of return on GICs, on the other hand, represents the interest rate available on a mixed, low-risk portfolio of stocks and bonds.

Table 2 reports seven measures of the real rate of interest – that is, the rate of interest net of the expected rate of inflation. The first of these is the market-determined rate of return on “real rate of return bonds” – bonds whose value is denominated in terms of the real rate of interest. These bonds are of particular importance because they are purchased by sophisticated investors and because they tend to be held for long periods of time.

The second, fourth, and sixth columns report the 5- and 10-year government bond interest rates and 5-year GIC rates net of the core inflation measure.

Finally, columns three, five, and seven report the government bond and GIC rates net of the Bank of Canada’s target rate of inflation of 2 percent. As the Bank has managed to keep the core rate of inflation within a small band around this target for the last six years, it is widely believed that 2 percent is the rate that is expected by most investors. That is, investors are believed to act as if the real rate of interest is the observed, nominal rate less 2 percent.

Table 2

Interpretation of the data

The data in Table 2 indicate that real rates of interest are lowest on the shortest-term investments, GICs and 5-year bonds, and highest on the longest-term investments, 10-year bonds and real rate of interest bonds. This suggests to us that investors believe that the current slowdown in the economy, which has induced central banks to lower interest rates very significantly, may continue for two or three years but will not continue in the long term.

For this reason, we believe that it would be appropriate to adopt a two part forecast of real interest rates. Based primarily on the observed rate on 5-year Government of Canada bonds, we propose to use a rate of 2.50 percent for the first five years of all calculations. Based primarily on the observed rate on 10-year Government of Canada bonds, we propose to use a rate of 3.50 percent for all subsequent years. Note that the latter rate is close to the average real rate of return on GICs over the period 1964 to 1998, (3.58 percent), reported in Bruce, Assessment of Personal Injury Damages, Third Edition, at page 231.

Once again, however, in recognition of the uncertainty facing our economy, we will revisit this question at the end of this year.

leaf

Christopher Bruce is the President of Economica and a Professor of Economics at the University of Calgary. He is also the author of Assessment of Personal Injury Damages (Butterworths, 2004).

Derek Aldridge is a consultant with Economica and has a Master of Arts degree (in economics) from the University of Victoria.

Scott Beesley is a consultant with Economica and has a Master of Arts degree (in economics) from the University of British Columbia.

Kelly Rathje is a consultant with Economica and has a Master of Arts degree (in economics) from the University of Calgary.

Destruction of evidence

Posted on By economica

by Christopher Bruce

This article was originally published in the Winter 2001/02 issue of the Expert Witness.

In many cases, the 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 this 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. I base 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.

Three Questions

I believe that any legal analysis of the destruction of evidence by a defendant must investigate three questions:

  • Did the defendant have reason to believe that it was the subject of litigation?
  • Did the defendant believe that the information in its possession could assist the court in the determination of negligence or liability?
  • Did the defendant intentionally or negligently destroy the evidence, or was that destruction “accidental?”

Was the Defendant the Subject of Litigation?

Businesses and individuals destroy private information every day. That destruction only becomes of concern to the court when it has an impact on the court’s ability to assess liability (and assign damages). For that reason, no legal “remedy” is required if a party had no reason to believe that destruction of information would have a bearing on any legal proceeding.

For example, if a factory has no reason to believe that its emissions have any harmful effects on its neighbours, destruction of information concerning those emissions should not subject it to penalties. To rule otherwise would require that all individuals and all businesses save all information indefinitely. Only if a subjective test concludes that the defendant should have been aware that its actions might be the subject of a legal action should it be held responsible for preserving records of those actions. This test should be stronger, the greater was the likelihood that the actions in question might become the subject of litigation.

Was the Information Determinative of Liability?

Assume that the first question has been answered in the affirmative – the defendant has been found to be aware of the possibility of litigation. Assume also that it could be determined ex post that the defendant knew that information in its possession would prove it to be negligent and liable; and that the defendant has intentionally destroyed that information.

The appropriate legal remedy would be to impose the same level of liability and damages on the defendant as would have been imposed if the information had been preserved. Such a ruling would simultaneously retain the plaintiff’s right to compensation and remove the incentive for the defendant to destroy the information.

Thus, if the court was able to determine ex post that the destroyed evidence would have contributed to the determination of liability, its appropriate response would be to reach the same conclusion that would have been reached had the information been preserved.

Conversely, if the court was able to determine ex post that the destroyed information would not have contributed to the determination of liability, its appropriate response would be to excuse the destruction of that information.

But when evidence has been destroyed, the courts often cannot determine whether that evidence would have been determinative of liability. (If liability could have been determined without that information, the issue of destruction of evidence would not have arisen in the first place.)

It is always in the defendant’s interest to argue that the information that it has destroyed was irrelevant to the case at bar. Once that information has been destroyed, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to lead either objective or subjective evidence to contradict the defendant’s argument.

The court is left with a dilemma. If it knew that the destroyed evidence would have proven the liability of the defendant, it should set damages as if liability had been proven. Whereas if it knew that the destroyed evidence would not have been of assistance to the court, it should ignore that destruction. But the defendant will always argue the latter and the court (and the plaintiff) will not be able to prove otherwise.

The issue then, is how can the court induce the defendant to preserve evidence that might prove to be relevant to the determination of liability? The simplest rule would be to place the onus on the defendant to prove that the destroyed evidence did not bear the importance that the plaintiff has claimed for it. That is, the normal onus of proof would be reversed.

Under this rule, if the defendant was of the honest opinion that the information it proposed to destroy was not relevant to the case, it would be induced to preserve that information until the trial date, if it was inexpensive to store. Or, if the information was expensive to store, it would be induced to offer to obtain the permission of the plaintiff to destroy that information. (If the plaintiff refused, the defendant might be allowed to claim storage costs against the plaintiff if the plaintiff’s case was not successful.)

And if the defendant was of the opinion that the information was relevant to the determination of liability, it would have an incentive to preserve that information. If it preserves the information, there may be some chance that it will be able to convince the court that it was not negligent or liable. Whereas if it destroyed the evidence, the proposed rule would find it liable with certainty.

That is, under all circumstances, the proposed rule would induce the defendant either to preserve potentially damaging evidence or to obtain the plaintiff’s permission to destroy that evidence. As this is the desired outcome, the rule may be said to be efficient.

Did the Defendant Destroy the Evidence “Intentionally?”

In the preceding section, I argued that if the defendant intentionally destroyed evidence, it should be found responsible for the same level of damages that would have been awarded had it been found liable. But what would the efficient rule be if the evidence was destroyed for reasons that were beyond the control of the defendant? Or if the evidence was destroyed as a result of the negligence of the defendant?

In the former of those cases – the destruction was “an act of God” or was, for other reasons, unforeseeable – the imposition of damages could not have the desired effect discussed above, of encouraging the defendant to preserve the information.

For example, if the defendant had stored information on a type of video tape that would disintegrate over time, the threat of damages could not induce the defendant to alter that behaviour if it had no reason to suspect that the tape had that characteristic. Similarly, the threat of damages could not induce it to protect itself against unforeseen floods or acts of terrorism.

In such cases, therefore, the courts’ rulings could not have the desired effect that I discussed above; namely, that of encouraging defendants to preserve valuable information. Rather, the only effect that imposition of damages could have in such cases would be to make the defendant the “insurer” of the plaintiff – a result that the courts have often rejected. Therefore, in cases of unforeseen destruction of evidence, the defendant should be excused from any liability to the plaintiff.

The more complex cases are those in which defendants recognised that their actions (or inactions) might lead to the destruction of evidence, but failed to alter their behaviour accordingly. For example, the defendant might have recognised that information would be lost if certain documents became wet but failed to provide storage facilities that were protected against moisture.

The efficient rule in this situation is to place the onus on the defendant to prove that the evidence does not have the import claimed by the plaintiff if it can be shown that the defendant’s actions (or inactions) were negligent. As with the rule concerning the intentional destruction of evidence, discussed above, this rule would leave the decision concerning the destruction of information in the hands of the party that is able to determine the probability that that information will be relevant to the assessment of liability.

As long as the defendant is aware that the information in its possession may be relevant to the determination of liability, this rule will normally induce the defendant to take all those precautions necessary to avoid a finding of negligence. That is, rather than face the prospect of being found liable for the plaintiff’s damages, the defendant will normally prefer to meet its standard of care. As this is the desired outcome – the court would never ask the defendant to take more precautions than necessary to meet its standard – this is the efficient rule.

Spoliation

In some jurisdictions the courts have been asked to treat the destruction of evidence as a tortious act, independently of whether that destruction affected the determination of liability. Under this tort, often called spoliation, the plaintiff asks that the defendant be punished for the harm it has caused to the legal system.

Implicitly, the argument in this article has been that no independent tort need be established. The harm caused by the destruction of evidence is that both the compensatory and deterrent effects of tort law are impaired. If the underlying function of the law is to ensure that innocent victims are compensated, for example, the destruction of evidence may prevent that function from being performed.

If a set of rules can be designed that induces defendants to take all reasonable steps to preserve relevant information, the basic function of tort law will also be preserved. But that is precisely what the rules described in this article can be expected to do. Hence, no additional rules – such as punishing the defendant for the destruction of evidence that could not reasonably have been expected to assist the court in its deliberations – are necessary.

Summary

My argument in this article has been that the goal of rules concerning the preservation of evidence must be to induce defendants to avoid the intentional or negligent destruction of any information that they believe may be useful in the determination of liability (or damages). I have argued in this paper that a sufficient rule is that a defendant that has intentionally or negligently destroyed evidence be treated as if liability had been found against him or her.

Furthermore, no distinction should be made between those cases in which the defendant argues that the evidence would not have been of value to the court and those in which it admits that the evidence would have been relevant. The only defences available to the defendant should be (a) that the destruction of the evidence was unforeseeable; or (b) that the destruction of the evidence had occurred even though the defendant had met its standard of care.

leaf

Christopher Bruce is the President of Economica and a Professor of Economics at the University of Calgary. He is also the author of Assessment of Personal Injury Damages (Butterworths, 2004).

The awarding of costs and payment of legal fees in a case brought before the Court: is there a potential injustice?

Posted on By economica

by Derek Aldridge & Ronald Cummings, QC

This article addresses an issue that was brought to our attention last year by Ronald Cummings, QC (Cummings Andrews & Mackay). It eventually led to an article that was published in the June 2001 issue of The Barrister. For the purposes of this article (published in the Winter 2001/02 issue of the Expert Witness), we focus on one particular issue contained in the earlier article.

Suppose that a defendant insurance company has incurred costs totalling $50,000 in the course of defending itself in a civil lawsuit. For simplicity, let us assume that the plaintiff’s costs were also $50,000. For simplicity, we will also ignore the size of the claim. If the plaintiff is successful in his action and is awarded costs, the defendant will not receive any relief from its $50,000 in expenses and it will also need to give $50,000 to the plaintiff to cover his costs. Thus, its total profit for the year will be $100,000 less than it would have been if it had been successful in the lawsuit and the plaintiff had been ordered to pay the insurance company’s costs. Clearly the defendant insurance company will need to generate $100,000 in revenue in order to pay for these costs.

Alternatively, let us suppose that the plaintiff was not successful in his lawsuit, and the Court requires that he pay the defendant’s $50,000 in costs. Thus, the plaintiff needs to have an additional $100,000 on hand to cover his own bill and that of the defendant. However, assuming that 25 percent of the plaintiff’s employment income goes toward income-tax, he will need to earn $133,333 in order to have $100,000 in after-tax dollars with which he can pay his bills. Because the plaintiff is an employee and not a business, he effectively faces a greater burden of costs if he loses the case than the defendant insurance company faces if it loses.

It is clear that there is an injustice due to the tax treatment of the employee-plaintiff versus the corporate-defendant. In this example, despite incurring the same costs ($50,000 each), a losing plaintiff will need to earn $133,333 to pay his bill, compared to a losing defendant which will only have to earn $100,000 to pay its bill.

Also, note that the tax treatment may affect a potential plaintiff’s ability and/or willingness to advance a “just-case”. Because these tax-effects clearly raise a plaintiff’s costs (both direct costs and potential costs if he loses his case), some just-cases “at the margin” will not be advanced because of unmanageable costs. Some of these cases would be advanced if the tax disincentives we have described were eliminated.

The fairest solution would be to allow the plaintiff to treat his payment of these costs as a deduction from his income (for tax purposes), so he would face the same burden as the defendant insurance company or a plaintiff-corporation. Of course this would require changing the tax laws – an option that is not available to the Court.

Note that the tax system has already been adjusted to allow income from structured settlements to escape tax. So if the plaintiff wins his case, favourable tax policies are already in place to ensure that his monetary compensation is not diminished by tax. A reasonable next-step would be to ensure that tax policies do not influence potential plaintiffs when they are deciding whether or not to advance a just-case.

leaf

Derek Aldridge is a consultant with Economica and has a Master of Arts degree (in economics) from the University of Victoria.

Ronald Cummings, QC is a partner in the firm Cummings Andrews & Mackay (www.camllp.com)