Arises from any interruption that reduces income permanently or forces the plaintiff to retrain or become unemployable (MVA, slip and fall, medical malpractice, aviation accident, motorcycle accident, sexual assault, wrongful confinement, wrongful imprisonment, or divorce). For MVA cases, income losses are calculated after taxes and deductions whereas in all non-MVA cases, income losses are calculated on a before-tax basis. Provincial/territorial legislation dictates whether income continuation benefits (ICBs) should be deducted from potential income losses.

Arises from any interruption that causes the death of one or both parents with dependents (children or elderly relatives). Dependency losses on income and valuable services are estimated on an after-tax basis, and a tax gross-up must be added. The decedent’s personal consumption (PCR) must be assessed to arrive at net damages. Dependency losses are shown with and without probabilities for divorce and remarriage, and allocated to each family member.

The forensic economist requires expert recommendations from an occupational therapist (OT) or other healthcare professional regarding goods and services the claimant requires as a result of the incident. These recommendations are extrapolated for the claimant’s lifetime, taking into account start and end dates, frequency of replacement, whether a productivity adjustment or health adjustment should be added, incorporates a mortality contingency, and reduces the sum to present value with per-item multipliers.

Assessed either through the plaintiff’s completion of the Diary of Household Activities or by a cost of care expert. Economic adjustments made by the forensic economist include the age at which housekeeping assistance should cease, a negative health contingency, and a mortality contingency.

In cases resulting in catastrophic injury so severe that the plaintiff’s life expectancy is shortened compared to his or her similarly-aged peers, the forensic economist must calculate an income loss award plus a lost years’ award (during the working years the plaintiff may no longer be alive). Additionally, an expert report from a life expectancy expert assessing the reduced years to live must be obtained and incorporated into the cost of care calculations.

In cases where defamation negatively affects the plaintiff’s career, economic evidence can be used to assess income loss damages. Ms. Brown’s evidence was accepted in Wanda Young v. Leslie Bella, William S. Rowe, and Memorial University of Newfoundland (2006), affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Ms. Brown has been involved in several human rights cases where a litigant seeks compensation for harm to earning capacity through discrimination rather than accident or other cause. Her evidence was accepted in the landmark case of Walsh and Mobil Oil Canada (2010), given on behalf of the human rights commission.

In all cases where economic loss damages are calculated on an after-tax basis, or when a cost of care fund is required in the future, a tax gross-up must be calculated so that the original awards are not eroded by the payment of taxes on the interest income generated by investing the declining balance of all awards. (The lump sums from litigation are non-taxable according to Canada Revenue Agency, but interest income accruing on the awards over time is taxable). This involves specific knowledge of each region’s tax rates and brackets as well as the claimant’s specific tax credits, and is an iterative calculation.

Brown Economic has been hired in multiple estate dispute cases which require evidence either of the claimant’s standard of living vis-a-vis Statistics Canada’s Survey of Household Spending, or lifetime cost of care needs (based on an OT’s recommendations). This evidence was accepted in Boje v. Boje (2002) and Riley (Re) (2022).