| Case | Tribunal
Year |
Issue | Past Income Award | Future Income Loss | ||
| Hall v Zurn | Ontario HRT
December 2023 |
Adverse treatment due to age | A past income loss was allowed of 5 years and 7 months, to applicant’s 65th birthdate, at roughly $100,000 per year | No future income loss was claimed | ||
| Mema v Naniamo | BC HRT
August 2023 |
Adverse 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.
A 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 |
No future income loss was claimed. | ||
| Francis v BC Minister of Justice | BC HRT
Jan 2021 |
adverse treatment due to race causing serious mental harm | $264,060
Income 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. |
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.
|
||
| 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;
1st review 2015 BCCA 2016
|
Mental disability | 6 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%) | |||
| Fair v Hamilton-Wentworth 2013; upheld 2014 by the Divisional Court, in turn upheld in 2016 by the Court of Appeal
|
Tribunal 2013;
Div Ct 2014 OCA 2016 |
Failure to accommodate disability | The 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. | |||
| Turner v Canada Border Services
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.
|
CHRT
2015 |
race, age, perceived disability (obese) | Compensation to the date of hearing – 10 years | 5 years prospective loss | ||
| 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 award
2013 |
Sexual harassment | $135,000 |
|
||
| Treane v City of Windsor | HRTO
2011 |
Age related medical testing | 2 years and 4 months | |||
| McKinnon v Correctional Services #3 | HRTO
2007 |
Liability for income loss of promotion due to reprisal | Order of instatement plus salary differential for 9 years to applicant and his spouse. | |||
| Reverend Gael Matheson v Presbytery of Prince Edward Island | PEI-HRC
2007 |
Adverse 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 | |||
| Datt v. McDonald’s Restaurants (No. 3) | BCHRT
2007 |
Adverse treatment due to disability | Lost income from termination date to the date of hearing, being one year and 9 months; tax adjustment | |||
| Toivanen v. Electronic Arts (Canada) (No. 2) | BCHRT
2006 |
Adverse treatment due to disability | Award made for lost stock options of $69,000 US based on average post termination value; “lost severance pay” of $19,000 | |||
| McAvinn v Strait Bridge Crossing | CHRT
2001 |
An 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. |
|
|||
| McKee v Hayes-Dana (Gorsky) | Ont B of I
April 1992 |
age | 8 years lost income | 15 months prospective loss | ||
| Large v Stratford | Ont B of I
Feb 1992 |
age | 5 years to age 65 | |||
| Singh v Statistics Canada | CHRT
1989 |
The 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 | |||
| OHRC and Karumanchiri et al v LCBO (Baum) 1987
|
Ont B of I
Div’n Ct |
Applicant 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. | |||
| Rajput v Algoma University (Tarnopolsky) | Ont B of I 1976 |
|
|
|||