Johal v. Meyede

Johal v. Meyede

The court affirmed the future loss of income award ($611,000) because the trial judge had sufficient evidence to infer a real and substantial possibility of the respondent advancing to operations manager and ultimately general manager and reasonably applied a one‑third contingency discount; however the court set...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 BCCA 509
Parties
Respondent (plaintiff): Lisa Johal; Appellant (defendant): Constance Meyede; Appellant (defendant): John Meyede
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
23 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Personal Injury (motor Vehicle) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia Trial Decision; Remittal of Future Care Issue to Trial Judge
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: future income award upheld; future care award set aside and remitted to trial judge for fresh determination; respondent awarded costs of the appeal
Legal Topics
Future Loss of Earning Capacity, Cost of Future Care, Appellate Review Standard, Evidentiary Sufficiency, Quantification of Damages, Remittal for Inadequate Reasons
Source Language
english
Torts Personal Injury Damages Insurance Law Appeal/procedure Future Loss of Earning Capacity Cost of Future Care Appellate Review Standard +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lisa Johal

Respondent (plaintiff)

Constance Meyede

Appellant (defendant)

John Meyede

Appellant (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Personal Injury (motor Vehicle) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia Trial Decision; Remittal of Future Care Issue to Trial Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was sufficient evidence to support an award for future loss of earning capacity based on assumed promotions and timeline
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge provided adequate reasons and evidentiary analysis for the award of cost of future care to permit appellate review and statutory deductions
  3. 3 Appropriate application of contingencies/discounts and use of economic vs capital asset approaches in quantifying future losses

Ratio Decidendi

The court affirmed the future loss of income award ($611,000) because the trial judge had sufficient evidence to infer a real and substantial possibility of the respondent advancing to operations manager and ultimately general manager and reasonably applied a one‑third contingency discount; however the court set aside the $90,000 award for cost of future care because the reasons failed to identify which items were allowed and in what amounts or to show consideration of evidentiary links and contingencies, and therefore remitted that issue to the trial judge for a fresh, itemized determination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: future income award upheld; future care award set aside and remitted to trial judge for fresh determination; respondent awarded costs of the appeal

Orders

  • Award for future loss of earning capacity in the amount of $611000 upheld
  • Award for cost of future care in the amount of $90000 set aside and remitted to the trial judge for fresh determination of each item and amount in accordance with the reasons