Gehrmann v. Lavoie

Gehrmann v. Lavoie

The Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial judgment because the Court of Appeal committed multiple errors in principle—failing to account for employer superannuation, secondary earnings, unfinished home improvements, misallocating car costs, overstating the deceased's personal maintenance allowance, using outdated actuarial tables and improperly deducting income tax and Canada Pension Plan benefits—and the $95,000 award was not so excessive as to be a wholly erroneous estimate of damages.

Citation
[1976] 2 SCR 561
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Katherine Gehrmann; Plaintiff Appellant (infant): Kelly Gehrmann; Plaintiff Appellant (infant): Glen Gehrmann; Plaintiff Appellant (infant): Chrystal Gehrmann; Defendant Respondent: Aimée Robert Lavoie
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 October 1975
Procedural Posture
Fatal Accidents / Torts (families' Compensation Act) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal quashed; judgment of Anderson J. at trial restored.
Legal Topics
Fatal Accident, Assessment of General Damages, Appellate Interference With Damages Awards, Actuarial Valuation, Deductions (income Tax, CPP, Superannuation), Loss of Dependency
Source Language
English
Torts Damages Family Compensation Insurance Law Fatal Accident Assessment of General Damages Appellate Interference With Damages Awards Actuarial Valuation +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katherine Gehrmann

Plaintiff Appellant

Kelly Gehrmann

Plaintiff Appellant (infant)

Glen Gehrmann

Plaintiff Appellant (infant)

Chrystal Gehrmann

Plaintiff Appellant (infant)

Aimée Robert Lavoie

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Fatal Accidents / Torts (families' Compensation Act) / Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada From Court of Appeal for British Columbia; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Appeal erred in principle in reducing general damages awarded by trial judge
  2. 2 Whether specific deductions (income tax, Canada Pension Plan, superannuation, unemployment insurance) are permissible in assessing damages under the Families' Compensation Act
  3. 3 Proper treatment of secondary earnings and unfinished home improvements in assessing dependency

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial judgment because the Court of Appeal committed multiple errors in principle—failing to account for employer superannuation, secondary earnings, unfinished home improvements, misallocating car costs, overstating the deceased's personal maintenance allowance, using outdated actuarial tables and improperly deducting income tax and Canada Pension Plan benefits—and the $95,000 award was not so excessive as to be a wholly erroneous estimate of damages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment of the Court of Appeal quashed; judgment of Anderson J. at trial restored.

Orders

  • Allow the appeal
  • Quash the judgment of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia