Davidge v. Fairholm
- Citation
- 2014 BCSC 2500
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 1 December 2014
- Posture
- Personal Injury / Tort / Post Trial Clarification (in Chambers)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 1 December 2014
- Posture
- Personal Injury / Tort / Post Trial Clarification (in Chambers)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the trial award of $250,000 for loss of future earning capacity already incorporated present valuation and therefore the third party's request for further present valuing was denied; no formal application to reopen or reconsider was made and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
Court disposition
Third party's request for clarification and further present valuing denied; trial award of $250,000 for loss of future earning capacity upheld; costs awarded to the plaintiff.
Orders
- Third party's request denied
- Award for loss of future earning capacity of $250,000 upheld
- Costs to the plaintiff in the cause
02
Material facts
Parties
Glen Neal Davidge
Plaintiff Counsel: D. Todd BrownBrian Douglas Fairholm
DefendantInsurance Corporation of British Columbia
Third Party Counsel: Christopher V. MorcomAmounts and remedies
- Loss of Future Earning Capacity: CAD 250,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Personal Injury / Tort / Post Trial Clarification (in Chambers)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the third party could require further present valuing of the award for loss of future earning capacity
- 02
Whether the third party's appearance required a formal application to reopen or for reconsideration
- 03
Allocation of costs following the clarification
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The third party requested clarification of the trial reasons and sought further present valuing (discounting) of the award for loss of future earning capacity.
- Respondent
- The plaintiff opposed any further discounting, noting the third party did not bring a formal application to reopen the trial or for reconsideration and did not assert a miscarriage of justice or meet reconsideration factors; plaintiff sought costs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
2014 BCSC 2500 (Griffin J.)
An award for loss of future earning capacity is assessed as a lump sum that is intended to take into account present value.
- 02
2014 BCSC 2500 (Griffin J.)
A party seeking to alter a trial judgment must bring a formal application to reopen or for reconsideration and satisfy the applicable factors.
- 03
2014 BCSC 2500 (Griffin J.)
Costs follow the result; the successful party is entitled to costs in the cause.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the trial award of $250,000 for loss of future earning capacity already incorporated present valuation and therefore the third party's request for further present valuing was denied; no formal application to reopen or reconsider was made and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
Obiter and limits
- The third party did not assert a miscarriage of justice or that it met factors for reconsideration.
- The clarification was delivered in chambers following trial reasons indexed at 2014 BCSC 1948.
Court disposition
Third party's request for clarification and further present valuing denied; trial award of $250,000 for loss of future earning capacity upheld; costs awarded to the plaintiff.
- Third party's request denied
- Award for loss of future earning capacity of $250,000 upheld
- Costs to the plaintiff in the cause
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 1 December 2014
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Judgment· 1 December 2014
2014 BCSC 2500 Davidge v. Fairholm
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Davidge v. Fairholm, 2014 BCSC 2500 Date: 20141201 Docket: M112552 Registry: Vancouver Between: Glen Neal Davidge Plaintiff And Brian Douglas Fairholm Defendant And Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Third Party Before: The Honourable Madam Justice S. Griffin Oral Reasons for Judgment In Chambers Counsel for the Plaintiff: D. Todd Brown Counsel for the Third Party: Christopher V. Morcom Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. December 1, 2014 Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. December 1, 2014 [1] THE COURT: The third party has appeared today after my trial reasons for judgment were delivered October 16, 2014, indexed at 2014 BCSC 1948. Third party has asked for "clarification" of my reasons for judgment in respect of the award of damages for loss of future earning capacity. [2] The plaintiff opposes the third party's position and notes that the third party does not bring a formal application to reopen the trial or for reconsideration, nor has the third party submitted there was a miscarriage of justice or that it would meet any of the factors for reconsideration. [3] The award of loss of future earning capacity at trial was intended to take into account all factors, including an assessment of the present value of the plaintiff's loss of future earning capacity. I concluded that the damages award for loss of
earning capacity was $250,000. It would not be in accord with my reasons for judgment to discount this further. I therefore reject the third party's position that there should be further present valuing of this loss. [4] That concludes my reasons. [5] Any submission as to costs? [6] MR. BROWN: Costs to the plaintiff as part of the trial, My Lady. [7] MR. MARCOM: Just costs in the cause, My Lady. [8] THE COURT: The costs will be to the plaintiff as the plaintiff has won the cause. "The Honourable Madam Justice S. Griffin"
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.