BLOG

Recent Posts

Vancouver ICBC Claim Lawyers

ICBC Personal Injury Lawyers

Our Vancouver ICBC claim lawyers deal with numerous cases where the court is asked to peer into the future and estimate what the pain and suffering and economic losses of our injured ICBC claim clients are. When you are a victim of an accident our Vancouver ICBC claim lawyers know there is no room for mistake.

Vancouver ICBC Claim Lawyers

Vancouver ICBC Claim Lawyers 604-602-9000

Call us immediately after an accident and even from the scene- if you can safely do so– at 604-602-9000. We’ll give you immediate advice and meet with you for free at any of our 4 offices, your home, or the hospital.

Our Tenacious and No Nonsense Vancouver ICBC Claim Lawyers Maximize Your Results

Our tenacious and no nonsense Vancouver ICBC claim lawyers know a crucial component of ensuring ICBC claim adjustors and ICBC defence lawyers settle cases for the highest injury settlement amount is negotiating a proper amount for past and future wage loss. For our professional clients who are injured and for young victims who have a whole career ahead of them impaired or crushed our ICBC claim lawyers know  the past and future wage loss can be astronomical.

MacLean Personal Injury Has 4 Offices Across BC to Help You Heal and Recover The Maximum Settlement Possible

MacLean Personal Injury has Vancouver ICBC claim lawyers have offices across BC in Vancouver, Surrey, Kelowna and Fort St John  and Dawson Creek BC. We meet with you for free and our not paid until you are.

Our Vancouver ICBC Claim Lawyers know getting the amount right is crucial to our clients and their families being able to move forward with a secure financial future.

Example Of How Future Wage Loss Is Calculated By Vancouver ICBC Claim Lawyers

In a recent decision of our BC Supreme Court of Nahal v. Ram a young man injured in a car crash in a crash involving a “Learner” driver was awarded a substantial sum for a head injury that barred him from properly developing and growing in his career. The judge reviewed the crash and its impact on the victim and our Vancouver ICBC claim lawyers commend it to anyone who has been recently injured.

[1]             This case arises from a single vehicle accident which occurred on April 7, 2010, near the intersection of East 33rd Ave. and Inverness St. in Vancouver, BC. The plaintiff was a passenger in a small Honda vehicle driven by the defendant, Raajan Ram and owned by the defendant, Chander Ram, when the vehicle was driven straight into a tree located on the boulevard in front of a home located on Inverness St. The plaintiff claims to have suffered soft tissue injuries, headaches and lacerations to his head and a mild traumatic brain injury which has affected his memory, career options and his ability to participate in social and athletic activities.

Future Loss of Earning Capacity

[95]         I have stated above, in my references to the evidence of Mr. Carson and Mr. Szekely, that I accept the evidence of Mr. Carson where there are differences in their opinions, noting that the opinions do not come to particularly different conclusions.

[96]         I am also satisfied that but for the accident, Mr. Nahal would likely have proceeded to obtain a Business Management Certificate and / or a real estate license and could have been on his way to a successful career. Most likely, he would have begun training within months of graduating from high school in June of 2010. At best as his condition currently stands, it is unlikely Mr. Nahal will be able to complete the pre-requisite courses for a Business Management Certificate or the real estate license, primarily due to his memory problems, which I am satisfied were caused by the accident. His failures since the accident, i.e. being dismissed by Home Depot in the fall of 2010, his failure to conclude the real estate exam and his struggles in the one course he took in business management at Kwantlen College, have all affected his confidence in his ability to succeed. Counselling may well assist; however, it is not clear whether or not Mr. Nahal will be able to progress.

[97]         The Court of Appeal decision in Perren v. Lalari, 2010 BCCA 140, has been referred to and applied in many cases assessing a possible award for future income loss. Commencing at para. [28] the court concluded:

[28]      In Romanchych, the defendant had contended on appeal that the trial judge erred by failing to consider the extent of any real and substantial possibilities of an actual income loss and attributing them weight according to their relative likelihood.

[29]      Mr. Justice Tysoe (in oral reasons) affirmed the trial judge’s approach to the test for future income loss. He held that:

[10]      The trial judge first addressed the question of whether the plaintiff’s earning capacity had been impaired to any degree by the injuries caused by the accident. She referred to Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458, 140 D.L.R. (4th) 235 at para. 27 for the proposition that a future or hypothetical possibility will be taken into consideration as long as it is a real and substantial possibility and not mere speculation. She also referred to Sinnott v. Boggs, 2007 BCCA 267, 69 B.C.L.R. (4th) 276, which she considered to be of particular assistance because it also involved a young person not yet settled into a career. The judge concluded that a loss of future earning capacity had been proven by the plaintiff.

[11]      The judge then address the quantum of the damages and, in that regard, made reference to the considerations set out in Brown v. Golaiy (1985), 26 B.C.L.R. (3d) 353 at para. 8 (S.C.). She referred generally to the various contingencies and possibilities to be encountered by a person in the position of the plaintiff and, considering there was a real and substantial possibility the plaintiff will experience an income shortfall during the rest of her working career, she fixed the award at the amount of $80,000.

[30]      Having reviewed all these cases, I conclude that none of them are inconsistent with the basic principles articulated in Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R., 458, and Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229. These principles are:

1          A future or hypothetical possibility will be taken into consideration as long as it is a real and substantial possibility and not mere speculation [Athey at para. 27] and

2          It is not loss of earnings but, rather, loss of earning capacity for which compensation must be made [Andrews at 251].

[32]      A plaintiff must always prove, as was noted by Donald J.A. in Steward, by Bauman J. in Chang, and by Tysoe J.A. in Romanchych that there is a real possibility of a future event leading to an income loss. If the plaintiff discharges that burden of proof, then depending upon the facts of the case, the plaintiff may prove the quantification of that loss of earning capacity, either on an earnings approach, as in Steenblok, or a capital asset approach, as in Brown. The former approach will be more useful when the loss is more easily measurable, as it was in Steenblok. The latter approach will be more useful when the loss is not as easily measurable, as in Pallos and Romanchych. A plaintiff may indeed be able to prove that there is a substantial possibility of a future loss of income despite having returned to his or her usual employment. That was the case in both Pallos and Parypa. But, as Donald J.A. said in Steward, an inability to perform an occupation that is not a realistic alternative occupation is not proof of a future loss.

[98]         In this case, with Mr. Nahal being involved in an accident two months before his secondary school graduation and not knowing at the time what the future was likely to hold for him, it only makes sense to approach the quantification of the loss of future income on a capital asset approach.

[99]         Considering a capital asset approach, the calculations of Mr. Carson are a starting point. Mr. Carson’s estimate of the potential income for real estate agents and salespersons with entry into the labour market in mid-2013, considering the present value of his future wages and commissions net of contingencies plus 10% for benefits, amount to $1,942,500. From that amount, one can deduct the present value of what Mr. Nahal could have been expected to earn on the same basis with a high school diploma entering the market in mid-2010, which Mr. Carson provides as $1,611,100. The difference between these two amounts, i.e. $331,400, is Mr. Nahal’s estimated loss of future income.

[100]     Other factors must also be considered in determining the loss of future income on a capital asset approach and that would include the likelihood of Mr. Nahal not being able to maintain constant employment in the future due to his limitations. If his memory problems, for example, persist and result in him not being able to cope with his high school diploma entry job or if his problems result in him having difficulty being hired, Mr. Nahal would suffer further losses. I find that interruptions in his term of employment are likely to occur from time to time. But how to value such loss? The only fair means of assessing this likelihood is to assign what must be a somewhat arbitrary sum for these future losses of income. Considering all of the evidence before me regarding the employability of Mr. Nahal, I find that a sum of $75,000, slightly less than 25% of Mr. Carson’s figure, should be added to the estimate of Mr. Carson resulting in a total award for loss of future income earning capacity of $406,400.

You never think it will happen to you but when it does you need immediate medical attention AND immediate legal guidance to ensure you and your loved ones are made whole through an accident that was not you fault. Call us now at 1-877-602-9900.



alterFantastic Law Firm! Right from the very start, I knew I had called the right people.alter