McTavish v. MacGillivray (2000), 136 B.C.A.C. 43 (CA);
222 W.A.C. 43
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2000] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MY.021
Leslie Karen McTavish (plaintiff/respondent) v. Ian Charles MacGillivray and Ford Credit Canada Ltd./Credit Ford du Canada limitée (defendants/appellants) and Darcy Boersma and Kathleen Boersma (defendants/appellants)
(CA023552; 2000 BCCA 164)
Indexed As: McTavish v. MacGillivray et al.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Hollinrake, Huddart and Saunders, JJ.A.
March 10, 2000.
Summary:
The plaintiff sued the defendants for damages for personal injuries suffered in two separate motor vehicle accidents.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. A92, allowed the action and assessed damages accordingly. The defendants appealed respecting the damages awarded for past and future loss of housekeeping services and capacity.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Editor’s Note: For a previous decision involving these parties, see [1997] B.C.T.C. Uned. A88.
Damages – Topic 1435
Special damages – Cost of housekeeping services – [See
Damages – Topic 1536
].
Damages – Topic 1536
General damages – Elements of general damages – Loss or impairment of housekeeping capacity – The trial judge awarded the female plaintiff (1) $20,800 for past loss of household services; (2) $43,170.40 for future loss of housekeeping capacity and (3) $450 for the cost of household services hired by the plaintiff – The judge found that the plaintiff’s ability to do household services was now limited, that her husband and son necessarily took over or supplemented the work she formerly did – Had they not done so, she would have incurred expenses – The British Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed that the trial judge could use the replacement cost method of valuation to assess past and future loss – The possibility that the plaintiff might not hire replacement help was not a contingency to be considered – See paragraphs 72 to 78.
Cases Noticed:
Kroeker v. Jansen et al., [1995] 6 W.W.R. 5; 58 B.C.A.C. 1; 96 W.A.C. 1; 123 D.L.R.(4th) 652; 4 B.C.L.R.(3d) 178 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 2, 73].
Ratych v. Bloomer, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 940; 107 N.R. 335; 39 O.A.C. 103; 69 D.L.R.(4th) 25; 30 C.C.E.L. 161; 3 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 9].
Daly v. General Steam Navigation Co.; Ship Dragon, Re, [1980] 3 All E.R. 696 (C.A.), consd. [para. 10].
Hall v. Miller (1989), 41 B.C.L.R.(2d) 46 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].
McCallum v. Ritter (1990), 83 Sask.R. 303; 72 D.L.R.(4th) 49 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].
Fobel v. Dean and MacDonald (1991), 93 Sask.R. 103; 4 W.A.C. 103; 83 D.L.R.(4th) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].
St. Lawrence and Ottawa Railway Co. v. Lett (1885), 11 S.C.R. 422, refd to. [para. 24].
Roach v. Yates, [1937] 3 All E.R. 442 (C.A.), consd. [para. 29].
Donnelly v. Joyce, [1973] 3 All E.R. 475; [1974] Q.B. 454 (C.A.), consd. [para. 30].
Crane v. Worwood (1992), 65 B.C.L.R.(2d) 16 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].
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. 32].
Johnson v. Shelest (1988), 22 B.C.L.R.(2d) 230 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].
Pickering v. Deakin (1984), 58 B.C.L.R. 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].
De Sousa v. Kuntz (1989), 42 B.C.L.R.(2d) 186 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].
West v. Cotton et al. (1995), 63 B.C.A.C. 53; 104 W.A.C. 53; 10 B.C.L.R.(3d) 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].
Cairns v. Harris (1994), 117 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 216; 365 A.P.R. 216 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].
Beam v. Pittman et al. (1997), 147 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 166; 459 A.P.R. 166 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].
Taylor v. Hogan (1998), 160 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 93; 494 A.P.R. 93 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].
Carter v. Anderson (1998), 168 N.S.R.(2d) 297; 505 A.P.R. 297; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 464 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].
Athey v. Leonati et al., [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458; 203 N.R. 36; 81 B.C.A.C. 243; 132 W.A.C. 243; 140 D.L.R.(4th) 235, refd to. [para. 44].
Roberts v. Johnstone, [1988] 3 W.L.R. 1247 (C.A.), consd. [para. 58].
Cummings et al. v. Olson (1996), 82 B.C.A.C. 241; 133 W.A.C. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].
Griffiths v. Kerkemeyer (1977-78), 139 C.L.R. 161 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 64].
Hodges v. Frost (1984), 53 A.L.R. 373 (Fed. Ct.), refd to. [para. 64].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Cassels, J., Damages for Lost Earning Capacity: Women and Children Last! (1992), 71 C.B.R.(N.S.) 445, p. 481 [para. 33].
Cooper-Stephenson, K., Damages for Loss of Working Capacity for Women (1978-79), 2 Sask. L. Rev. 7, p. 17 [para. 32].
Counsel:
S.B. Stewart and M.H. Wright, for the appellants;
D. Lunny, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on December 13, 1999, before Hollinrake, Huddart and Saunders, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal.
On March 10, 2000, the judgment was delivered for the Court of Appeal and the following opinions were filed:
Huddart, J.A. – see paragraphs 1 to 71;
Saunders, J.A. (Hollinrake, J.A., concurring) – see paragraphs 72 to 78.
