Belanger v Sudbury

chrisboersmachrisboersma
in Land.Cases

Is there any documentation on how they agreed to the $12m figure.

I realize this isn't going to be tested, just curious about why such a large amount. There doesn't appear to be a single comment regarding the amount. Aren't the courts responsible to ensure these amounts are "reasonable"?

I realize this was a young defendant, but how many auto accident cases go over $10m? Her injuries weren't discussed. Also, how does this sort of settlement fit in with SABS?

Comments

  • grahamgraham
    edited February 2019

    Interesting questions. The first thing that pops into mind is the Trilogy ruling that limits the non-pecuniary compensation to an inflation-adjusted $100,000. The Trilogy ruling is discussed in the wiki here:

    Belanger's settlement of 12m was clearly much higher. Whiten v Pilot (discussed in LandMark Legal Cases) was another award above the Trilogy cap. Neither was one of the standard exceptions of sexual abuse or defamation. These cases probably fall into the Supreme Court's category of:

    • high-handed, malicious, arbitrary or highly reprehensible misconduct that departs to a marked degree from ordinary standards of decent behaviour

    I don't know the details of how the specific dollar values were determined in these 2 cases. I'm not sure city workers failing to re-plow a roadway would be highly reprehensible and malicious, probably just negligent, but the courts presumably felt negligence was enough in the Belanger case.

    I found a web page that talks about the interplay between SABS and suing an at-fault party. For the Belanger case, the at-fault party was the city, not another driver, but it's the same idea because the injured party claimed damages beyond what SABS allows,

    To quote the article:

    • "If the other driver was at fault, and you suffered a permanent serious impairment, you may be able to sue for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and future health care costs. You might also be able to sue for any economic losses or out of pocket expenses that have not been reimbursed by your insurer. These issues are quite complicated and should be discussed with your lawyer."
  • skaneskane

    I don't think applying the trilogy ruling to those cases makse any sense because the high awards were for pec losses, right?

  • grahamgraham

    Unless I missed something, I didn't see that the text discussed what proportion of the 12m was for pecuniary versus non-pecuniary damages.

    If the full amount of 12m was exclusively for pecuniary damages (medical care, loss of income,...) then you're right that Trilogy wouldn't apply since the Trilogy cap applies to non-pecuniary damages.

  • wilsonchan18wilsonchan18

    Sorry, did I miss something? What is the Trilogy here?

  • grahamgraham

    The Trilogy ruling is from a different reading that you may not have gotten to yet:

    It's number 20 in the Ranking Table.

Sign In or Register to comment.