Guy v. Trizec Equities Ltd., (1979) 27 N.R. 301 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 14, 1979
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1979), 27 N.R. 301 (SCC);[1979] SCJ No 69 (QL);1979 CanLII 232 (SCC);[1979] 2 SCR 756;10 CCLT 197;99 DLR (3d) 243;4 ACWS (2d) 104;27 NR 301;54 APR 345;32 NSR (2d) 345

Guy v. Trizec Equities Ltd. (1979), 27 N.R. 301 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

Guy v. Trizec Equities Ltd.

Indexed As: Guy v. Trizec Equities Ltd.

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Ritchie, Spence, Pigeon, Dickson, Beetz, Estey and Pratte, JJ.

June 14, 1979.

Summary:

This case arose out of a man's claim for damages for personal injuries. The plaintiff was a pedestrian on an urban street and was struck by a piece of plywood which was accidentally dropped by a workman from the roof of a building under construction. There was no covered way for pedestrians as required by the National Building Code and the Nova Scotia Construction Safety Act. The plaintiff brought an action for damages in negligence against the owner of the building, the general contractor and a sub-contractor (which employed the negligent workman). The Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Trial Division, allowed the plaintiff's action and found all 3 defendants liable. The Trial Division awarded the plaintiff $250,000.00 general damages for personal injuries. The judgment of the Trial Division is reported at 26 N.S.R.(2d) 48; 40 A.P.R. 48. The defendants appealed from the quantum of the damage award to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.

The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the plaintiff's general damages for personal injuries from $250,000.00 to 133,000.00. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reported at 26 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 40 A.P.R. 1. The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and increased the plaintiff's general damages for personal injuries from $133,000.00 to $190,000.00. The Supreme Court of Canada held that pension benefits received by the plaintiff from his employer after his forced retirement are not to be deducted in assessing the plaintiff's future loss of earnings (see paragraphs 12 to 14).

Damages - Topic 1550

General damages for personal injury - Calculation of prospective loss of wages or earnings - Deduction for pension benefits - The plaintiff executive was injured and was forced to retire early - He received a pension from his employer after his retirement - The Supreme Court of Canada held that such pension benefits are not to be deducted in calculating the plaintiff's general damages for future loss of earnings - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that benefits derived from the man's contract of employment are not to be deducted in assessing the man's future loss of earnings (see paragraphs 12 to 14).

Damages - Topic 1730

Deductions for payments or assistance by third parties - Contractually, payments from employer - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that benefits derived from a man's employment contract with his employer, or benefits which flow from the work which a man has done, are not to be deducted in assessing the man's damages (see paragraph 13).

Damages - Topic 1554

General damages for personal injuries - Calculation and method of assessment, general principles - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to and approved the method of assessing general damages in separate amounts for each element of general damages (see paragraph 11).

Damages - Topic 1565

General damages for personal injuries - Deductions or payments to be considered - Income tax - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the principle that income tax is not to be deducted in calculating a plaintiff's claim for damages for future loss of earnings (see paragraphs 20 to 22).

Cases Noticed:

Andrews et al. v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd. et al., 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182; [1978] 2 S.C.R. 299, refd to. [para. 11].

Thornton v. School District No. 57 (Prince George) et al., 19 N.R. 552; [1978] 2 S.C.R. 267, refd to. [para. 11].

Arnold et al. v. Teno et al., 19 N.R. 1; [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287, refd to. [para. 11].

Keizer v. Hanna et al., 19 N.R. 209; [1978] 2 S.C.R. 342, refd to. [para. 11].

Parry v. Cleaver, [1970] A.C. 1, folld. [para. 13].

Canadian Pacific Ltd. v. Gill, [1973] S.C.R. 654, folld. [para. 13].

Counsel:

Keith E. Eaton, Q.C. and A. William Moreira, for the appellant;

David R. Chipman, Q.C., for the respondents.

This appeal was heard by LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, RITCHIE, SPENCE, PIGEON, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY and PRATTE, JJ. of the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa, Ontario on December 7, 1978.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by RITCHIE, J. on June 14, 1979.