I recognize that if I had followed what was done in Guy v. Trizec Equities Ltd. et al.(1979), 1979 CanLII 232 (SCC), 99 D.L.R. (3d) 243, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 756, 32 N.S.R. (2d) 345, and had assumed that the plaintiff would retire at some specific age short of 65, say, age 62, it would not have been necessary to consider the question whether any contingency deduction should be applied to a claim for loss of earnings. However, I did not adopt the approach followed in Guy v. Trizec Equities Ltd. because I felt that the plaintiff would have worked until age 65 if he had been physically able to do so and that it was, therefore, fairer to make a percentage deduction to allow for the contingency of disability rather than to assume that the plaintiff would have ceased working at some arbitrary age before 65 and to have awarded actual loss of wages only up to that date.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.