IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

Date: 20120419

Docket: M070137

Registry:
Vancouver

Between:

Wayne Robert
Tompkins

Plaintiff

And

Tawnya Ley Bruce

Defendant

And

Insurance
Corporation of British Columbia

Third
Party

Before:
The Honourable Mr. Justice Curtis

Supplementary Reasons for Judgment

[1]            
The plaintiff has applied to correct a factual error in the judgment of
February 22, 2012 filed in this case. In paragraph 69 of that judgment,
Mr. Tompkins was found entitled to recover loss in his pension caused by the
collision, but in paragraphs 70 and 71, the evidence at trial was interpreted
to show that there was no actual loss if he retired at 65, with the result that
no amount was awarded for pension loss. That interpretation of the evidence was
erroneous.

[2]            
Mr. Hildebrand, the economist retained by the third party, has calculated
Mr. Tompkins’ pension loss at $41,007, in his report of April 4, 2012, discounting,
as required by law, the deemed contribution and pensionable service which
accrued to Mr. Tompkins’ benefit, as a result of negotiated terms of his
employment.

[3]            
The plaintiff submits his pension loss should be awarded at that amount.
The $41,007 figure, however, is calculated before consideration of the number
of hours of work Mr. Tompkins might lose on account of his pre-existing
injuries and WCB claims. Mr. Tompkins began his employment with the School District
April 5, 2004. In the year ended December 31, 2005, his pensionable service was
.8408 rather than full time.  He was working only part time because of his
February 20, 2006 knee injury when the accident occurred. Considering Mr. Tompkins’
history of injuries and associated WCB claims, there is a real and substantial
possibility that he would have missed work and had reduced pensionable service
between June 2006 and his retirement at age 65. Considering the circumstances,
I find that a 15% reduction of the $41,007 figure is appropriate.

[4]            
I reject the third party’s submission that there should be a further adjustment
because Mr. Tompkins got long-term disability earlier than he would have if he hadn’t
had the accident and therefore more deemed contributions to his pension. The
law precludes a defendant from reducing a plaintiff’s loss on the basis of such
a negotiated benefit.

[5]            
I find Mr. Tompkins entitled to receive $34,856 on account of his loss
to his pension caused by the collision.

“V.R. Curtis J.”