What is the deductibility of collateral benefits in a personal injury case?

16 The question of the deductibility of collateral benefits has vexed the courts for years. The area has become a conceptual quagmire. The majority in Ratych v. Bloomer (1990), 1990 CanLII 97 (SCC), 69 D.L.R. (4th) 25 (S.C.C.) approached the matter by asking whether the plaintiff had proved an actual loss. McLachlin J. summarized her reasons for the majority (5-4) in this way at 52-53: The general principles underlying our system of damages suggest that a plaintiff should receive full and fair compensation, calculated to place him or her in the same position as he or she would have been had the tort not been committed, in so far as this can be achieved by a monetary award. This principle suggests that in calculating damages under the pecuniary heads, the measure of the damages should be the plaintiff's actual loss. It is implicit in this that the plaintiff should not recover unless he can demonstrate a loss, and then only to the extent of that loss. Double recovery violates this principle. It follows that where a plaintiff sustains no wage loss as a result of a tort because his employer has continued to pay his salary while he was unable to work, he should not be entitled to recover damages on that account.