Court finds plaintiff would have stopped working at 65, despite plaintiff’s evidence to the contrary


December 13, 2016

In the recent decision of La Porte v. Earl, 2016 BCSC 2298, the court found that the plaintiff would only have worked until age 65, notwithstanding her evidence to the contrary.  The court said:

[133]     I have found on a balance of probabilities that Ms. La Porte would not have been able to work beyond the age of 65, even if she had not been involved in the Accident.

[134]    I am aware that loss of future income earning capacity, involving as it does uncertain future events, may be awarded if the evidence shows a substantial possibility of such future loss. However, in this case I find that there was no substantial possibility that Ms. La Porte could work beyond age 65.  

[135]     Accordingly, even though Ms. La Porte indicated that she intended to work beyond age 65, I can find no basis for an award under this head of damages.

The full text of the decision can be found here:

The McQuarrie Hunter Personal Injury Blog is maintained by the ICBC and personal injury practice group at McQuarrie Hunter LLP.


Related Articles