Fatal Accident Claims

by Christopher Bruce
Summer 1996 Expert Witness (1.2)
In this article Christopher Bruce discusses the theoretical arguments raised by Mr. Justice Coté's decision that an estate is able to rely on the Survival of Actions Act to sue for a deceased's loss of earning capacity.

by Christopher Bruce
Autumn 1996 Expert Witness (1.3)
This article is Christopher Bruce's second of two reports on the ramifications of the Alberta Court of Appeal decision in Galand Estate v. Stewart. The article in this issue considers the implications of Galand for the calculation of damages.

by Christopher Bruce
Winter 1996 Expert Witness (1.4)
In this article Christopher Bruce deals with the topical issue of alternative approaches to the calculation of the dependency rate. He argues here that determination of whether a sole dependency method, a revised dependency method, or a revised cross dependency method is appropriate will depend upon the nature of the marriage of the couple in question.

by Christopher Bruce
Summer 1997 Expert Witness (2.2)
This article deals with the impact of the recent Alberta Appeal Court decision in Duncan v. Baddeley. Christopher Bruce discusses the implications of this decision for: fatal accident actions in which there are no dependants; the selection between the Fatal Accidents Act and the Survival of Actions Act; and the valuation of the "lost years" deduction in both fatal accident and personal injury actions.

by Derek Aldridge
Spring 1998 Expert Witness (3.1)
In this article Derek Aldridge expands upon previous articles in our newsletter which have arisen from the Duncan v. Baddeley court of appeal decision. He raises several questions concerning the calculation of losses in light of this decision, and suggests that it may not be possible to resolve these issues until it is determined whether the Court's goal is one of compensation or deterrence.

by Scott Beesley
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.

by Scott Beesley
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.

by Christopher Bruce
Autumn 1999 Expert Witness (4.3)
In this article Christopher Bruce discusses two trial court decisions concerning the method by which claims for loss of earnings are to be calculated under the Survival of Actions Act. He argues that, although these two decisions clarify many of the outstanding issues in this area, a number of crucial problems remain unresolved.

by Derek Aldridge
Winter 1999 Expert Witness (4.4)
In this article Derek Aldridge examines the difference between using the sole- and cross-dependency approaches when estimating the loss of income dependency following a fatal accident. Chris Bruce wrote about this issue three years ago in the Expert Witness (Volume 1, Number 4). Derek’s article emphasises the specific differences between the calculations in the two different approaches.

by Derek Aldridge
Spring 2001 Expert Witness (6.1)
In this article Derek Aldridge, investigates a number of issues concerning the valuation of estate claims under the Survival of Actions Act. These issues arise from two recent decisions of the Court of Appeal, in Duncan v. Baddeley and Brooks v. Stefura.

by Christopher Bruce
Summer 2001 Expert Witness (6.2)
In this article Chris Bruce 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, Chris offers some observations that may cast some light on these issues.

by Scott Beesley
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.

by Scott Beesley
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.

by Christopher Bruce and Derek Aldridge
Autumn 2001 Expert Witness (6.3)
In this article Christopher Bruce and Derek Aldridge discuss the court’s decision in the recent case of Rewcastle v. Sieben. The case concerned an estate claim brought under the Survival of Actions Act. In his decision, Justice Hutchinson introduced a new method for calculating the deduction for “expenses directly related to earning income.” In their article Dr. Bruce and Mr. Aldridge summarise Justice Hutchinson’s method and comment on its broader applicability.

by Derek Aldridge
Summer/Autumn 2002 Expert Witness (7.2)
In this article Derek Aldridge considers one of the most interesting findings from a recent court decision. The issue concerned how to reconcile “dependency” claims under the Fatal Accidents Act with “estate claims” made under the Survival of Actions Act. In the Millott decision, it appears that if a dependant/heir’s share of the estate’s loss of income claim (under SAA) is greater than his loss of dependency on the deceased’s income (under FAA), then he is awarded the SAA amount, but he can also receive any claim for loss of services under FAA.

by Kelly Rathje
Autumn 2007 Expert Witness (12.2)
In this article Kelly Rathje discusses the treatment of survivor pension benefits in fatal auto accidents, in light of the new rules defined by Alberta’s Insurance Amendment Act.

The following articles are available on our web site, under the topic “Fatal Accident Claims”: