Significant Past & Future Lost Income Awards

🏠
Home ›
📁
Human Rights Damage Summaries Index ›
[Human Rights: Significant Past & Future Income Loss Awards]

Human Rights: Significant Past & Future Income Loss Awards
CaseTribunalIssuePast Income AwardFuture Income Loss
Year
Hall v ZurnOntario HRTAdverse treatment due to ageA past income loss was allowed of 5 years and 7 months, to applicant’s 65th birthdate, at roughly $100,000 per yearNo future income loss was claimed
Dec-23
Mema v NaniamoBC HRTAdverse treatment due to race;A past income loss was allowed from April 2018 to August 2023, a period of roughly 5 years and 4 months.No future income loss was claimed.
Aug-23A 25% discount was applied to the lost income claim to account for the impact of adverse issues relating to the applicant’s prior employment. The award was $584,413
Francis v BC Minister of JusticeBC HRT adverse treatment due to race causing serious mental harm $264,060 Future income loss from December 2020 to date of retirement at age 63, against competing arguments of age 55 and 65. Sum ordered was $430,000 plus pension loss of $65,800.
Jan-21Income loss was subject to discount of 20% to account for impact of extraneous litigation on mental health;
Time period covered was from July 2013 to November 2020, 7 years and 4 months.
Y.Z. v Halifax Regional MunicipalityNova Scotia Tribunal 2019racepast and future income loss set at $433,00 after 50% discount
Kelly v. University of British Columbia, 2013; reversed in 2015 on judicial review by B.C. Supreme Court and reinstated in 2016 by Court of Appeal;Tribunal 2013;Mental disability6 years lost income award due to the delay in obtaining certification in the sum of $385,000. Discount applied of 30% to account for risk of not completing the training (10%) and the likelihood of being unable to maintain a full medical practice (20%)
1st review 2015
BCCA 2016
Fair v Hamilton-Wentworth 2013; upheld 2014 by the Divisional Court, in turn upheld in 2016 by the Court of AppeallTribunal 2013;Failure to accommodate disabilityThe lost income award was not specifically challenged upon review. The final lost income award was roughly 12 years, although it is not specifically set out in the decision. This was the time period from termination to the final order of the Court of Appeal.
Div Ct 2014
OCA 2016
Turner v Canada Border ServicesCHRTrace, age, perceived disability (obese) Compensation to the date of hearing – 10 years5 years prospective loss
The liability finding was set aside by the Federal Court in October of 2015. A reconsideration decision set out the means of proceeding for a new hearing de novo.2015
City of Calgary vs Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 38. (arbitrator was allowed to consider common law, human rights and arbitral law, on consent)Arbitrator awardSexual harassment $135,000The maximum period for the future loss was nine years, this also being the date when the employee would be eligible to receive retirement benefits. The panel concluded a fair date to use for a future income loss would be based on a likely return to work date of July 1, 2018. The date of the decision was December 1, 2013. The future income loss was hence established to be $512,149, which was reduced by a 10% risk factor and a discounted rate for a present payment of a future income stream of 2.25%.
2013
Treane v City of WindsorHRTOAge related medical testing2 years and 4 months
2011
McKinnon v Correctional Services #3HRTOLiability for income loss of promotion due to reprisalOrder of instatement plus salary differential for 9 years to applicant and his spouse.
2007
Reverend Gael Matheson v Presbytery of Prince Edward Island PEI-HRCAdverse treatment due to gender$425,000 lost income award to the date of the hearing which was 10 years, plus tax gross-up plus reinstatement. In addition, $5,000 for medical and out-of-pocket expenses, $1,000 education allowance and $17,810 for pension loss
2007
Datt v. McDonald’s Restaurants (No. 3)BCHRTAdverse treatment due to disabilityLost income from termination date to the date of hearing, being one year and 9 months; tax adjustment
2007
Toivanen v. Electronic Arts (Canada) (No. 2)BCHRTAdverse treatment due to disabilityAward made for lost stock options of $69,000 US based on average post termination value; “lost severance pay” of $19,000
2006
McAvinn v Strait Bridge CrossingCHRTAn order was made requiring that the first available position of a bridge patroller be awarded to the complainant in its decision of November 2001. The commencement date of the lost income award was May 31, 1997. The award stated that failing such availability of alternate employment, the total lost income was to be set at a 10 year period. The contingent prospective loss was hence set for a time period of six years and seven months.
2001
McKee v Hayes-Dana (Gorsky) Ont B of I age8 years lost income 15 months prospective loss
Apr-92
Feb-92
Large v StratfordOntario B of I
Feb 1992		age5 years to age 65
Singh v Statistics CanadaCHRTThe applicant was instated to a more senior position due to a finding of adverse treatment due to age and awarded the income differential from August 1989 to the date of instatement in November of 1998.9 years income differential
1989
OHRC and Karumanchiri et al v LCBO (Baum) 1987Ont B of IApplicant was instated to the promoted position of Chief Chemist.8 years of income differential. The award of lost income was not raised by the employer upon the unsuccessful judicial review but success would likely have impacted this award.
Div’n Ct
Aff’d Divisional Court 1988
Rajput v Algoma University (Tarnopolsky)Ont B of I 1976 A subsequent vacancy was advertised for a similar position in February of 1975, to which Dr. Rajput applied. It was found that he was not successful in this application due to racial discrimination. Reinstatement was not ordered due to the impact of such an order on innocent third parties.The complainant, a Sociology professor, had been given a terminal contract by the university for the academic year running from July 1, 1974 to June 30, 1975. An order of compensation was made for the next academic year was made as a prospective loss of income instead, dependent upon the attempts made by the complainant to seek alternative income in this time period internally and externally.

 

👤
About the Author:

David Harris — Canadian Employment Law

🔎 Human Rights Damages Summaries Resources

📚

Human Rights Damages Summaries – Index
|
🗂️

Human Rights Summaries Posts (All Posts)
|
🏠

Return to Canadian Employment Law

This page provides general information and is not legal advice. For advice about your situation,
please request a referral to legal counsel.

📅 Updated:

This Post Has One Comment

Comments are closed.