J. Scott Beesley, MA
Scott Beesley has a B.Sc. in Physics, and an M.A. in Economics from the University of British Columbia. In addition to writing reports for Economica, he has taught macroeconomics, econometrics and basic statistics courses for the Universities of Calgary and Lethbridge. In 1994-1995 he taught a full set of courses as an economics instructor at the University College of the Cariboo in Kamloops, BC. Scott has also worked as a roadpainter, truck driver, specification writer, inspector/manager in the electronics industry, and X-ray technician. He was on the executive of the Economics Society of Calgary from 1995-1996 to 1999-2000, acting as seminar chair, secretary and then wise old guy (old wise guy?). In 2003-05 he was an Economics Instructor at The University College of the Cariboo/Thompson Rivers University (TRU). He now lives in Edmonton and still works for Economica, though only part-time. Finally, he likes chess, and used to verge on an "expert" rating on his good days.
email: scott@economica.ca
Scott's curriculum vitae (a pdf document)
Expert Witness articles that Scott has authored or co-authored:
(Reverse chronological order – most recent articles at the top)
-
Selecting the Discount Rate –
An Update
- Spring 2003 Expert Witness (8.1)
- This article extends the work done by us in issues 5(3) and 6(4) of The Expert Witness, we conclude that it would be appropriate to revise our existing 2½ and 3½ percent two-part forecast of real interest rates. We propose to use a rate of 2¼ percent for the first five years of all calculations. For all subsequent years we propose to use a rate of 3¼ percent.
-
Under-reporting of Income by the
Self-Employed
- Winter 2002/03 Expert Witness (7.3)
- In this article Scott Beesley discusses a technique that can be used to estimate the extent to which a self-employed worker has under-reported his net business income.
-
Selecting the Discount Rate –
An Update
- Winter 2001 Expert Witness (6.4)
- In this article the consultants at Economica have combined to review the most recent information concerning the “discount rate;” that is, the rate of interest at which plaintiffs are assumed to invest their award.
-
Case Comment: Boston v. Boston
- Summer 2001 Expert Witness (6.2)
- The Supreme
Court of Canada recently ruled in the case of Boston
v. Boston. This was a case involving the variation of
spousal support at the time of the husband’s
retirement. He retired in 1997 and began to receive his
pension. He applied to have the original support payment
reduced, on the grounds that he was now paying support
from his pension, which had already been considered in
the original division of assets. It was argued that the
wife had traded off her right to half the pension, and in
return had received the bulk of the physical and other
assets. He succeeded in having the monthly payment
lowered from $3,200 to $950, but the Ontario Court of
Appeal increased the figure back to $2,000. The husband
was appealing that last OCA decision in the Supreme
Court.
The SCC’s decision allowed the husband’s appeal and restored the motions judge’s decision to reduce support to $950 per month. This was in my view correct, as it would appear to be unjust that the wife should receive half of an asset at separation, and then be allowed to claim part of the husband’s half of that asset later.
-
Avoiding Overlap Between Fatal
Accident Act and Survival of Actions Act
Claims
- Summer 2001 Expert Witness (6.2)
- This article points out that while the method set out by the Court of Appeal in Brooks v. Stefura does prevent double-recovery, it does not prevent double-payment, that is, the payment of the same dollar to one plaintiff under the FAA and to another under the SAA. The text of the judgment makes it clear that the Court does not wish this to occur. The article suggests a refinement of the Court’s method which would prevent such double-payments. Four detailed examples are provided.
-
The Deduction (?) of
“Accelerated Inheritance” (Scott
Beesley’s view)
- Summer 2001 Expert Witness (6.2)
- In this
article Scott Beesley discusses a requirement established
by the Court of Appeal in its October 17, 2000 ruling in
Brooks v. Stefura. This was that
“accelerated inheritances” should be deducted
from each plaintiff’s dependency award.
The Court did not, however, state clearly what it meant by “accelerated inheritances,” nor did it specify how those inheritances were to be calculated. In this article, Scott offers some observations that may cast some light on these issues.
-
Case Comment: Madge v.
Meyer
- Summer 2000 Expert Witness (5.2)
- This article concerns a case in which there was no apparent loss of income following a farm owner’s injury. Mr. Beesley notes that it is critical to separate the farm income generated through the assistance of a friend or family member from the income earned by the injured farm owner. If the income generated by an unpaid (or underpaid) worker is attributed to the injured owner then the injured person’s loss of income could be greatly underestimated.
-
Injured, Yet Better Off?
- Summer 1999 Expert Witness (4.2)
- In this article Scott Beesley discusses the proposition that a plaintiff is better off as a result of an accident, explains why it is false, and provides some examples.
-
Issues Arising in the Calculation of
Damages under the Survival of Actions Act (Part 2)
- Spring 1999 Expert Witness (4.1)
- This is a continuation of a previous article by Scott Beesley concerning some issues that arise in assessing claims under the Survival of Actions Act. He now discusses the methodology of the calculation, the connection between Survival of Actions Act and the Fatal Accidents Act, and the recent decisions in Brooks v. Stefura and Duncan itself.
-
Mitigation vs. Rights in
Self-Employed Cases
- Winter 1998 Expert Witness (3.4)
- In this article, Scott Beesley discusses some interesting points concerning the issue of injured business owners and their future loss of income.
-
Issues Arising in the Calculation of
Damages Under the Survival of Actions Act (Part 1)
- Winter 1998 Expert Witness (3.4)
- In this article Scott Beesley discusses the issues that arise in the calculation of damages under the Survival of Actions Act. Mr. Beesley addresses the possible size of the "necessities" deduction.
-
D’Amato v. Badger –
Complications Arising when the Plaintiff is a Business
Partner
- Winter 1997 Expert Witness (2.4)
- In this article Christopher Bruce and Scott Beesley bring clarity to some of the complex issues that surround the loss of income which arises when the proprietor of a small business is injured. In particular, they deal with the situation encountered in the recent Supreme Court decision of D’Amato v. Badger, in which D’Amato was a partner in a small business. The issue of compensation became clouded because D’Amato, through his partner’s generosity, was in receipt of a wage post-accident that exceeded the value of his contribution, given his compromised condition.
-
Issues in Loss of Income
Calculations for Self-Employed Individuals
- Summer 1997 Expert Witness (2.2)
- In this article, Scott Beesley outlines various factors which complicate the assessment of the loss of income for self-employed individuals. After clearly laying out the potential pitfalls in these cases, he reviews a number of approaches which might be employed to maximise the accuracy of these estimates.
-
Spousal Influence on the Decision to
Retire
- Spring 1997 Expert Witness (2.1)
- In this article Scott Beesley notes that the respondents to surveys do not expect the influence of their spouse to be large in terms of choice of retirement age. He also reports that surveys of those who have yet to retire tend to suggest that this factor plays a much stronger role.
-
Application of Contingencies in the
Pre-trial Period
- Winter 1996 Expert Witness (1.4)
- In this article Scott Beesly offers some brief comments concerning whether or not survival probabilities and employment contingencies should be applied to pre-accident income in the pre-trial period.
-
Distinguishing Between Loss of
Income and Loss of Earning Capacity: The B.C. Case of
Pallos v. I.C.B.C.
- Summer 1996 Expert Witness (1.2)
- In this article Scott Beesley provides an analysis of the implications of the British Columbia case, Pallos v. I.C.B.C. In Pallos, the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled that although the plaintiff had returned to his former employer, earning as much as he had prior to the accident, his injuries acted to reduce his future "earning capacity." He was awarded $40,000 on this head of damages. Mr. Beesley shows that the approach adopted in Pallos is an extension of a widely-used concept, "weighted average."
-
Shortened Life Expectency: The "Lost
Years" Calculation
- Spring 1996 Expert Witness (1.1)
- In this article Scott Beesley analyses the impact which a reduced life expectancy has on the plaintiff's claim for loss of future earnings - the "lost years deduction." In a future issue, this discussion will be extended to the calculation of losses in fatal accident actions in which the deceased has left no dependents - following from the Alberta decisions in Galand and Duncan.