Products & Services

Court Testimony From Experts @ Bec

Excerpt from Millott v. Reinhard

Replacement Cost

[284] I conclude that it is appropriate to use the best estimate available in the circumstances, as long as it has been adequately proven. In this case, the Defendants' counsel did not cross-examine Kirker on her assumptions and sources underlying the replacement cost figures. Accordingly, I am faced with Kirker's estimates on one hand and the Defendants' numbers (contained in a summary of precedents generated by Brown) on the other hand.

[285] Regarding which of those figures are the best estimates in these circumstances, I turn to the Defendants' second argument on replacement cost. They submit that Kirker's specific hourly estimate of $26.50 was too high for the maintenance and repair work that would have been performed by Millott. The Defendants argue, based on Brown's summary of precedents, that Alberta courts typically use an average hourly wage of $11.00 to $13.00 for such activities. Kirker testified that the $26.50 figure was "the average hourly rate in the Calgary area for the handyman service".

[286] The basis for the Defendants' challenge is what other courts have awarded under different circumstances. For example, in Taguchi v. Stuparyk (1994), 16 Alta.L.R. (3d) 72 (Q.B.), varied (1995), 29 Alta.L.R. (3d) 175 (C.A.), application for leave to appeal dismissed [1995] S.C.C.A. No.258, online: (SCCA), Matheson, J. accepted a rate of $8.50 before trial and $12 after trial. I note that this was for house cleaning and cooking, rather than such things as electrical and plumbing work, and appliance repair. In that decision, Matheson, J. makes some persuasive comments (at 85 and 86):

Surely the rate of valuation must depend in each case upon the evidence adduced in that case. I have not been referred by either side to any 'conventional' rate. ...


[T]he aim of damages is to compensate the plaintiff as closely as possible for the actual loss suffered. While commercial rates are clearly not determinative of the issue, they are important and relevant in any attempts to value the lost services in that they represent really the only means available to the plaintiffs to attempt to replace in some fashion the lost services.

[287] The court there chose $12 as a middle ground between the plaintiffs' commercial rates and the defendant's $7 per hour. Although the majority of the Court of Appeal varied the trial decision, making the post-trial award equal to the pre-trial award, I still find Matheson, J.'s comments on the use of commercial rates helpful.

[288] In the circumstances here, I am not satisfied with Kirker's evidence in this area. Her evidence consists of a bald statement regarding handyman costs. While Millott undoubtedly had skills and experience in a number of "handyman" areas, and his family has suffered a financial loss by being deprived of those skills, $26.50 per hour is not supported. On the other hand, the Defendants' $11 to $13 per hour is clearly based on general housekeeping, not on the specific skills possessed by Millott.

[289] I find $18 per hour to be an appropriate rate for maintenance and repair in the handyman area. I also note that I find Kirker's other rates ($14.25 per hour for regular and seasonal cleaning, and $110 per month for outdoor maintenance) reasonable in the circumstances, and the best estimates available.