Lindal v. Lindal

Lindal v. Lindal

The functional purpose of non-pecuniary awards and the established $100,000 guideline mean awards exceeding that figure are exceptional and require proof that the money will serve additional useful functions or that inflation warrants adjustment; the appellant failed to show exceptional circumstances or admissible evidence of inflation, so the Court of Appeal correctly reduced the award to $100,000 and ordered interest adjustments on future income per the Court Order Interest Act less five percent.

Citation
[1981] 2 SCR 629
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Brian William Lindal; Respondent/defendant: Kenneth Daniel Lindal
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 December 1981
Procedural Posture
Tort Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Pecuniary Damages, Functional Approach to Damages, Upper Limit on Awards, Inflation Adjustment, Post Judgment Interest
Source Language
English
Torts Personal Injury Civil Damages Non Pecuniary Damages Functional Approach to Damages Upper Limit on Awards Inflation Adjustment Post Judgment Interest

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian William Lindal

Appellant/plaintiff

Kenneth Daniel Lindal

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Tort Personal Injury Appeal / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge could lawfully award non-pecuniary damages in excess of the $100,000 upper limit established in the trilogy cases
  2. 2 Whether the appellant proved exceptional circumstances to justify exceeding the $100,000 guideline
  3. 3 Whether inflation justified increasing the $100,000 guideline in this case

Ratio Decidendi

The functional purpose of non-pecuniary awards and the established $100,000 guideline mean awards exceeding that figure are exceptional and require proof that the money will serve additional useful functions or that inflation warrants adjustment; the appellant failed to show exceptional circumstances or admissible evidence of inflation, so the Court of Appeal correctly reduced the award to $100,000 and ordered interest adjustments on future income per the Court Order Interest Act less five percent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Non-pecuniary damages fixed at $100,000
  • Appeal dismissed with costs