Ferraiuolo Estate v. Olson, 2004 ABCA 281

• Judge: Fraser, C.J.A., Picard and Paperny, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: March 03, 2004
• Citations: 2004 ABCA 281;(2004), 357 A.R. 68 (CA)

Ferraiuolo Estate v. Olson (2004), 357 A.R. 68 (CA);

    334 W.A.C. 68

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. OC.077

Dante Ferraiuolo, personal representative of the Estate of Maria Rosa Ferraiuolo, deceased (respondent/appellant by cross-appeal) (plaintiff) v. Natalie Olson (appellant/respondent by cross-appeal) (defendant) and The Attorney General of Alberta (intervenor/respondent by cross-appeal)

(0301-0193-AC; 2004 ABCA 281)

Indexed As: Ferraiuolo Estate v. Olson

Alberta Court of Appeal

Fraser, C.J.A., Picard and Paperny, JJ.A.

October 7, 2004.

Summary:

The plaintiff, an 84 year old pensioner, died when she was struck by a motor vehicle driven by the defendant. The plaintiff's estate, as represented by the plaintiff's 57 year old married son, sued the defendant. Liability was admitted. The son claimed damages on behalf of the estate for loss of the plaintiff's earning capacity (i.e., pension income) under s. 5 of the Survival of Actions Act and claimed $25,000 damages for himself for grief and loss of guidance, care and companionship under s. 8(2)(c) of the Fatal Accidents Act. Section 8(2)(c) conferred on certain surviving children only - minors and those under 26 who were unmarried and not living with a cohabitant - the right to damages of $25,000 for grief and loss of care, guidance and companionship when their parent was killed by a wrongdoer.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 338 A.R. 160, disallowed the son's claim for damages for loss of guidance, care and companionship under the Fatal Accidents Act, but allowed the claim for loss of the plaintiff's earning capacity under s. 5 of the Survival of Actions Act. The defendant appealed the award under the Survival of Actions Act and the son cross-appealed, arguing that s. 8(2)(c) of the Fatal Accidents Act discriminated against him contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter on the basis of age and marital status.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's appeal on the Survival of Actions Act issue. The court allowed the cross-appeal, holding that s. 8(2)(c) of the Fatal Accidents Act improperly crossed the discrimination line under s. 15(1) and could not be saved under s. 1. As a remedy, the court severed the words in s. 8(2)(c) which referred to age and marital status.

Civil Rights - Topic 5502

Equality and protection of the law - General principles and definitions - Whether right to equality abridged - An 84 year old woman was killed when struck by a motor vehicle - Her 57 year old son claimed damages under s. 8(2)(c) of the Fatal Accidents Act - Section 8(2)(c) provided that the court shall award $25,000 for loss of guidance, care and companionship to each child of the deceased who was either a minor, or unmarried and between the ages of 18 and 26 and who was not living with a cohabitant - The son argued that s. 8(2)(c) was unconstitutional in that it discriminated against him on the basis of age and marital status contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter - The trial judge rejected the son's claim, holding that he failed to establish that s. 8(2)(c) was discriminatory - The son appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that s. 8(2)(c) was contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter and could not be saved by s. 1 - See paragraphs 12 to 25.

Civil Rights - Topic 5656.4

Equality and protection of the law - Particular cases - Fatal accidents legislation - Section 8(2)(c) of the Fatal Accidents Act conferred on certain surviving children only - minors and those under 26 who were unmarried and not living with a cohabitant - the right to damages of $25,000 for grief and loss of care, guidance and companionship when their parent was killed by a wrongdoer - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that s. 8(2)(c) was contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter because it was discriminatory on the basis of age and marital status - Further, s. 8(2)(c) could not be saved by s. 1 of the Charter - As a remedy, the court severed the words in s. 8(2)(c) which referred to age and marital status such that the provision would read "$25,000 to each child of the deceased person" - See paragraphs 1 to 182.

Civil Rights - Topic 5656.4

Equality and protection of the law - Particular cases - Fatal accidents legislation - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5502 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5656.4 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - The Alberta Court of Appeal discussed without deciding whether it was a pressing and substantial objective within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter to exclude certain persons from the benefit of legislation to avoid "unacceptable" increases in insurance premiums - See paragraphs 151 to 155.

Civil Rights - Topic 8380.14

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Severance of portion of statute or section - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5656.4 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8581.1

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Charter application - Scope of review - Section 8(2)(c) of the Fatal Accidents Act conferred on certain surviving children only - minors and those under 26 who were unmarried and not living with a cohabitant - the right to damages of $25,000 for grief and loss of care, guidance and companionship when their parent was killed by a wrongdoer - The constitutionality of s. 8(2)(c) was challenged on the ground that it constituted discrimination contrary to s. 15(1) of the Charter on the basis of age and marital status - A trial judge ruled that s. 8(2)(c) was not contrary to s. 15 - An appeal was filed again raising the same constitutional issues - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that since these issued involved a question of law, namely the constitutionality of s. 8(2)(c), the standard of review was correctness - See paragraphs 12 to 14.

Civil Rights - Topic 8668

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Equality rights (s. 15) - What constitutes a breach of s. 15 - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5502 ].

Damages - Topic 2104

Torts causing death - Damages recoverable - An 84 year old woman was killed when struck by a motor vehicle - Her 57 year old son claimed damages on behalf of the estate for loss of the plaintiff's earning capacity (i.e., pension income) under s. 5 of the Survival of Actions Act - She was receiving a Canadian federal old age security pension, and Italian Government old age pension and Italian Government survivors pension - The trial judge held that since the Canadian federal old age pension was not based on contribution, nor was it based on the pensioner's work history, it was not a lost earnings to the deceased and was therefore not recoverable - However the other pensions were as a result of contributions made and therefore formed the basis for a compensable loss - The court calculated the loss accordingly, resulting in judgment for the son of $29,000 - The Alberta Court of Appeal affirmed the decision - See paragraphs 169 to 180.

Damages - Topic 2176

Torts causing death - Considerations which increase award - Loss of pension benefits -[See Damages - Topic 2104 ].

Damages - Topic 2378

Torts causing death - Particular damage claims - Loss of guidance, care and companionship - The Alberta Court of Appeal reviewed the evolution of the law relating to claims for damages for grief - See paragraphs 19 to 73.

Damages - Topic 2378

Torts causing death - Particular damage claims - Loss of guidance, care and companionship - [See Civil Rights - Topic 5502 ].

Cases Noticed:

Gosselin v. Quebec (Procureur général), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 429; 298 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 84, refd to. [para. 3].

Law v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497; 236 N.R. 1; 170 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 3].

Housen v. Nickolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 211 D.L.R.(4th) 577; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 14].

Gonzalez v. Driver Control Board (Alta.) et al. (2003), 330 A.R. 262; 299 W.A.C. 262; 178 C.C.C.(3d) 508; 2003 ABCA 256, refd to. [para. 14].

Thomson v. Transportation and Safety Board (Alta.) - see Gonzalez v. Driver Control Board (Alta.).

Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143; 91 N.R. 255; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 15].

Lavoie et al. v. Canada et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 769; 284 N.R. 1; 2002 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 15].

Butterfield v. Forrester (1809), 103 E.R. 926 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 10].

Davies v. Mann (1842), 10 M. & W. 546; 152 E.R. 588 (Ex.), refd to. [para. 19, footnote 10].

Phillips v. Homfray (1883), 24 Ch. D. 439 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21, footnote 11].

Baker v. Bolton (1808), 1 Camp. 493; 170 E.R. 1033 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 14].

Wycko v. Gnodtke (1960), 105 N.W.2d 118 (Mich. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 24, footnote 15].

Osborn v. Gillett (1873), L.R. 8 Ex. 88, refd to. [para. 29, footnote 18].

Monahan v. Nelson (2000), 137 B.C.A.C. 251; 223 W.A.C. 251; 186 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 25].

Blake v. Midland Railway Co. (1852), 18 Q.B. 93; 118 E.R. 35, refd to. [para. 37].

St. Lawrence & Ottawa Railway Co. v. Lett (1885), 11 S.C.R. 422, refd to. [para. 37].

Proctor v. Dyck, [1953] 1 S.C.R. 244, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 29].

Dalton v. South Eastern Railway Co. (1858), 140 E.R. 1098 (Common Bench), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 30].

Toronto Railway Co. v. Mulvaney (1907), 38 S.C.R. 327, refd to. [para. 37, footnote 30].

Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada v. Jennings (1888), 13 App. Cas. 800 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 38].

Vana v. Tosta, [1968] S.C.R. 71, refd to. [para. 38].

Coco et al. v. Nicholls et al. (1981), 31 A.R. 386 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 32].

Flett Estate v. Way-Mat Oilfield Services Ltd. et al. (1990), 103 A.R. 314 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 32].

Schiewe Estate v. Skogan et al. (1996), 185 A.R. 321 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 32].

Yakemchuk Estate et al. v. St. Joseph's General Hospital et al. (1998), 238 A.R. 1; 1998 ABQB 711, refd to. [para. 38, footnote 32].

Admiralty Commissioners v. S.S. Amerika, [1917] A.C. 38 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 34].

England v. Lamb (1918), 42 O.L.R. 60 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

McGarry v. Canada West Coal Co. (1909), 11 W.L.R. 597 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 41].

Rose v. Ford, [1937] A.C. 826 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 42].

Higgins v. Butcher (1606), 80 E.R. 61 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 43, footnote 42].

Batog v. Mundy, [1939] 2 W.W.R. 1 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 46].

Carl v. Steinhauer (1957), 20 W.W.R. 520 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Bechtold v. Osbaldeston, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 177, refd to. [para. 47].

Crosby Estate v. O'Reilly, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 381; 2 N.R. 338, refd to. [para. 47].

Andrews et al. v. Grand & Toy (Alberta) Ltd. et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182; [1978] 1 W.W.R. 577; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 452; 3 C.C.L.T. 225, refd to. [para. 54, footnote 58].

Teno et al. v. Arnold et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287; 19 N.R. 1; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 609; 3 C.C.L.T. 272, refd to. [para. 54].

Thornton v. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 57 (Prince George) et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 267; 19 N.R. 552; 83 D.L.R.(3d) 480; [1978] 1 W.W.R. 607; 3 C.C.L.T. 257, refd to. [para. 54].

Duncan Estate v. Baddeley et al. (1997), 196 A.R. 161; 141 W.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 61, 169].

Lemke v. Juckes Estate et al. (2000), 273 A.R. 274; 2000 ABQB 776, refd to. [para. 64].

Miron and Valliere v. Trudel et al., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418; 181 N.R. 253; 81 O.A.C. 253; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 693; 13 R.F.L.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 76].

Corbière et al. v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs) et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203; 239 N.R. 1; 173 D.L.R.(4th) 1, varying [1997] 1 F.C. 689; 206 N.R. 85 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 77].

Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (Attorney General) et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81; 38 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 77].

Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Allies et al. v. Ontario et al., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 950; 255 N.R. 1; 134 O.A.C. 201; 2000 SCC 37, refd to. [paras. 81, 126].

Lovelace v. Ontario - see Ardoch Algonquin First Nation and Allies et al. v. Ontario et al.

Egan and Nesbit v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513; 182 N.R. 161; 12 R.F.L.(4th) 201; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 609, refd to. [para. 83].

Vriend et al. v. Alberta, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493; 224 N.R. 1; 212 A.R. 237; 168 W.A.C. 237; 156 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [paras. 83, 139, footnote 80].

R. v. Morgentaler, Smoling and Scott, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30; 82 N.R. 1; 26 O.A.C. 1; 44 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 31 C.R.R. 1; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 62 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 83, footnote 80].

Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium et al. v. Canada (Minister of Justice) et al., [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120; 263 N.R. 203; 145 B.C.A.C. 1; 237 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 83, footnote 81].

Workers' Compensation Board (N.S.) v. Martin et al., [2003] 2 S.C.R. 504; 310 N.R. 22; 217 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 683 A.P.R. 301; 2003 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 89].

New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G. and D.V., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46; 244 N.R. 276; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25; 552 A.P.R. 25, refd to. [para. 90].

Public Service Employee Relations Commission (B.C.) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3; 244 N.R. 145; 127 B.C.A.C. 161; 207 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 94].

Hagan v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust (1998), 231 A.R. 153 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 99, footnote 88].

Kelly v. Lundgard et al. (2001), 286 A.R. 1; 253 W.A.C. 1; 2001 ABCA 185, refd to. [para. 99, footnote 88].

Semeniuk v. Cox et al. (2000), 258 A.R. 73; 2000 ABQB 18, refd to. [para. 99, footnote 88].

Bowlby v. Oosterhuis et al., [2003] O.T.C. 225; 63 O.R.(3d) 748 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 99, footnote 88].

Fitzgerald v. Tin et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. 151; 11 B.C.L.R.(4th) 375; 2003 BCSC 151, refd to. [para. 99, footnote 88].

Ordon et al. v. Grail, [1998] 3 S.C.R. 437; 232 N.R. 201; 115 O.A.C. 1; 166 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 99, footnote 89].

Eisten v. North British Railway Co. (1870), 8 Macph. 980, refd to. [para. 100, footnote 92].

Clarke v. Carfin Coal Co., [1891] A.C. 412 (Scot.), refd to. [para. 100, footnote 94].

Montreal West (Town) v. Hough, [1931] S.C.R. 113, refd to. [para. 101].

Augustus v. Gosset, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 268; 202 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 101].

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Robinson (1887), 14 S.C.R. 105, refd to. [para. 101, footnote 96].

Robinson v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co., [1892] A.c. 481 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 101, footnote 96].

Chaput v. Romain, [1955] S.C.R. 834; 1 D.L.R.(2d) 241, refd to. [para. 101, footnote 97].

Eaton v. Board of Education of Brant County, [1997] 1 S.C.R. 241; 207 N.R. 171; 97 O.A.C. 161; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 123, footnote 110].

RJR-MacDonald Inc. et Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Canada (Procureur général), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199; 187 N.R. 1; 127 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 100 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 140, footnote 117].

Easthope et al. v. Stenabaugh et al. (2004), 358 A.R. 143; 2004 ABQB 342, refd to. [para. 150, footnote 122].

Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; 217 N.R. 1; 206 A.R. 1; 156 W.A.C. 1; 121 Man.R.(2d) 1; 158 W.A.C. 1; 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 483 A.P.R. 1; 150 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 152].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1; 93 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 92 C.L.L.C. 14,036; 10 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 152].

Tétreault-Gadoury v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 22; 126 N.R. 1; 81 D.L.R.(4th) 358, refd to. [para. 162].

Benner v. Canada (Secretary of State), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 358; 208 N.R. 81, additional reasons [1997] 3 S.C.R. 389, refd to. [para. 162].

Ratz Estate v. Feldman (2001), 287 A.R. 197; 2001 ABQB 372, refd to. [para. 165].

Duncan Estate v. Baddeley (2000), 266 A.R. 323; 228 W.A.C. 323; 192 D.L.R.(4th) 53; 2000 ABCA 277, refd to. [para. 165].

Sieben v. Rewcastle Estate (2002), 303A.R. 389; 2002 ABCA 91, refd to. [para. 169].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. et al. v. Gill et al. (1973), 37 D.L.R.(3d) 229 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 172].

Parry v. Cleaver, [1970] A.C. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 172].

Sarvanis v. Canada, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 921; 284 N.R. 263; 2002 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 176].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 15(1) [para. 74].

Fatal Accidents Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. F-5, sect. 8(2)(c) [para. 8].

Survival of Actions Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. S-30, sect. 5 [para. 168].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Abeles, N., Delano-Wood, L., and Victor, T., The Impact of an Older Adult's Death on the Family (2004), 35 Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 234, generally [para. 103, footnote 98].

Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Debates (April 30, 2002), p. 1069 [para. 104, footnote 100].

Alberta, Institute of Law Research and Reform, Survival of Actions and Fatal Accidents Act Amendment, Report No. 24 (1977), generally [para. 51, footnote 53]; pp. 14 [para. 49, footnote 51]; 15 [para. 49, footnote 50]; 17, 18 [para. 100, footnote 94]; 19 [paras. 50, 115, footnotes 52, 107]; 198 [para. 49, footnote 48].

Alberta, Institute of Law Research and Reform, Non-Pecuniary Damages in Wrongful Death Actions - A Review of Section 8 of the Fatal Accidents Act: Report for Discussion No. 12, Report No. 12 (1992), generally [para. 55, footnote 61]; pp. 2 [para. 56, footnote 62]; 11 [para. 29, footnote 19]; 27 [para. 38, footnote 33]; 56 [para. 117, footnote 108]; 112, 113 [para. 113, footnote 105]; 121 [para. 130, footnote 115]; 124 to 131 [para. 151, footnote 125]; 130 [paras. 151, 154, footnotes 126, 128].

Alberta, Institute of Law Research and Reform, Non-Pecuniary Damages in Wrongful Death Actions - A Review of Section 8 of the Fatal Accidents Act: Report No. 66 (1993), generally [para. 111, footnote 103]; pp. 3 [para. 114, footnote 106]; 4 [para. 99, footnote 91]; 5 [paras. 148, 150, footnotes 121, 123]; 13 [para. 57, footnote 64]; 33 [paras. 129, 135, 152, footnotes 114, 116, 127]; 41 [para. 112, footnote 104]; 55 to 58 [para. 57, footnote 65]; 130 [para. 151, footnote 126]; 569 [para. 57, footnote 63].

Alberta, Institute of Law Research and Reform, Should a Claim for Loss of a Chance of Future Earnings Survive Death?, Consultation Memorandum No. 4 (1997), generally [para. 63, footnote 72].

Alberta, Law Reform Institute, Should a Claim for Loss of a Chance of Future Earnings Survive Death?, Final Report No. 76 (1998), generally [para. 63, footnote 72].

Alberta, Institute of Law Research and Reform, Will Damages for a Lost Chance of Future Earnings Duplicate Damages for Loss of Dependency?, Supplementary Memorandum (1997), generally [para. 63, footnote 72].

Baines, B., Law v. Canada: Formatting Equality (2000), 11 Const. Forum 65, generally [para. 83, footnote 79].

Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1898), vol. 3, p. 143 [para. 19, footnote 9].

District of Columbia, Centre for Advancement of Health, Report on Bereavement and Grief Research (2003), p. 35 [paras. 99, 103, footnotes 90, 99].

Feldman, D., Human Dignity as a Legal Value - Part 1 (1999), Pub. L. 682, generally [para. 83, footnote 79].

Goudy, H., Two Ancient Brocards, in Vinogradoff, P., Essays in Legal History (1913), p. 227 [para. 21, footnote 13].

Greschner, D., Does Law Advance the Cause of Equality (2001-2002), 27 Queen's L.J. 299, p. 310 [para. 87, footnote 84].

Greschner, D., The Purpose of Canadian Equality Rights (2002), 6 Rev. Const. Stud. 291, generally [para. 90, footnote 86].

Hansard (Alta.) - see Alberta, Hansard, Legislative Debates.

Hogg, Peter W., Constitutional Law of Canada (3rd Ed.) (1997 Looseleaf Supp.), p. 52-26 [para. 83, footnote 79].

Holdsworth, W.S., The Origin of the Rule in Baker v. Bolton (1916), 32 L.Q. Rev. 431, pp. 434 [para. 30, footnote 21]; 436 [para. 26, footnote 16].

Holdsworth, William Searle, A History of English Law (1923), vol. 2, p. 47 to 49 [para. 28, footnote 17].

Klar, Lewis N., Linden, Allan M., Cherniak, Earl A., and Kryworuk, Peter W., Remedies in Tort (1987) (Looseleaf), vol. 4, pp. 27-84.1 [para. 18, footnote 6]; 27-162.33 [para. 61, footnote 70].

Law Times, The (April 14, 1934), vol. 177, p. 265 [para. 33, footnote 25].

Lehman, D.R., Wortman, C.B., and Williams, A.F., Long-Term Effects of Losing a Spouse or Child in a Motor Vehicle Crash (1987), 52(1) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 218, generally [para. 99, footnote 90].

L'Heureux-Dubé, J., Conversations on Equality (1999), 26 Man. L.J. 273, p. 276 [para. 86, footnote 82].

Linden, Allen M., Canadian Tort Law (7th Ed. 2001), p. 453 [para. 19, footnote 10].

Malone, W.S., The Genesis of Wrongful Death (1964-65), 17 Stan. L. Rev. 1043, pp. 1043 [paras. 29, 31, footnotes 20, 22]; 1051 [para. 21, footnote 13]; 1053 [para. 19, footnote 9]; 1054 [para. 101, footnote 95]; 1055 [paras. 28, 101, footnotes 17, 94].

Martin, S., Equality: What's Left to Be Done, in Pitblado, Isaac, Lectures (2002 Looseleaf), pp. III-7 [para. 79, footnote 77]; III-31 [para. 87, footnote 85].

McLachlin, Beverly M., What Price Disability? A Perspective on the Law of Damages for Personal Injury (1981), 59 Can. Bar Rev. 1, p. 6 [para. 21, footnote 11].

Pitblado, Isaac, Lectures (2002 Looseleaf), p. III-7 [para. 79, footnote 77].

Pollock, Law of Torts (15th Ed. 1951), p. 54 [para. 31, footnotes 23, 24]; 55 [para. 35, footnote 26].

Ross, J., A Flawed Synthesis of the Law (2000), 11 Const. Forum 74, generally [para. 83, footnote 79].

Vinogradoff, P., Essays in Legal History (1913), p. 227 [para. 21, footnote 13].

Waddams, Stephen M., The Law of Damages (2003 Looseleaf Ed.), paras. 6.780 [para. 21, footnote 11]; 6.800 [para. 21, footnote 12]; 6.860 [para. 49, footnote 49].

Counsel:

A.L. Kirker, for the appellant/respondent by cross-appeal;

W.D. Peterson, Q.C., for the respon-dent/appellant by cross-appeal;

L.C. Enns, for the intervenor/respondent by cross-appeal.

This appeal was heard on March 3, 2004, before Fraser, C.J.A., Picard and Paperny, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered on October 7, 2004, including the following opinions:

Fraser, C.J.A. - see paragraphs 1 to 162;

Paperny, J.A. (concurring) - see paragraphs 163 to 182;

Picard, J.A. (concurring) - see paragraph 183.