Ontario Personal Injury Lawyers
Call 1-888-404-5167
Preszler Injury Lawyers

What is Ontario’s Golden Years Doctrine?


Ontario law entitles a plaintiff to recover damages from a defendant who negligently injures him or her. The goal of the law is to return the plaintiff to the original position — that is, the position the plaintiff would have been in had the injury not occurred.

For some kinds of damages, like medical bills or other expenditures that leave a paper trail, determining the amount is straightforward. But for non-pecuniary damages — things like pain and suffering, for which no receipt is ever issued — the question becomes more complicated, and courts look to a number of factors in setting the proper amount.

One of those factors is age. Historically, defendants in personal injury lawsuits in Ontario have tried to argue that an elderly plaintiff should recover less than a younger plaintiff, because the older plaintiff has less time in which to suffer the effects of his or her injury. Fortunately, courts in Canada have rejected that argument, applying a contrary principle called the Golden Years Doctrine.

The Golden Years Doctrine recognizes that the same injury can have a much greater impact on an elderly plaintiff than on a younger one, because the older plaintiff has fewer opportunities to adjust his or her life to compensate for the injury than the younger plaintiff. To understand the Golden Years Doctrine in more detail, we should take a quick trip out west to British Columbia.

Lessons of the Golden Years Doctrine from British Columbia

Talk With Our Legal Team



If you have any questions and would like to schedule a call with our legal team for a FREE no-obligation consultation, contact us now. During this call you can ask any questions as it relates to your accident and/or claim and we'll discuss your options and possible outcomes.

Regardless of where you're located in Ontario – we may be able to help you. Don't delay - call us. Our lines are open 24/7.

Ontario courts have applied the Golden Years Doctrine in appropriate cases, but the courts in British Columbia have been at the forefront in developing the doctrine. In fact, when arguing over the application of the doctrine, Ontario plaintiffs and defendants often rely on British Columbia cases as much as Ontario precedent.

Because of this, we should take some time to consider how British Columbia courts have applied the Golden Years Doctrine before looking at what it means for Ontarians.

1. Physical injuries may have a greater impact on an older person than on a younger person.

The Golden Years Doctrine was introduced to Canadian courts in June 1994, when Justice Fraser of the Supreme Court of British Columbia decided the case of Giles v. Canada. In Giles, the plaintiff was seriously injured when her car was struck by a speeding police car that did not have its sirens on.

The plaintiff, who was in her mid-70s at the time of the collision, spent a month in the hospital. She suffered from a fractured nose and fractures in her legs and chest. Before the accident, the court noted, she had been “nimble and agile,” enjoying a “vibrant, fun-loving, active and serene” life. As a result of her injuries, however, she experienced difficulty moving around, and “lost the courage to be independent.”

The defendants in Giles argued that the plaintiff’s damages had to be reduced because of her advanced age. They cited a case in which an 88-year-old man had his damages reduced because of “the necessarily limited duration of [his] future suffering.”

The court rejected the analogy, pointing out a “competing consideration” that had to be factored in: what has come to be known as the Golden Years Doctrine.

Call 1-888-608-2111 for available options or Book a Consultation

Accordingly, the court awarded the plaintiff $75,000, refusing to reduce her damages as the defendants requested.

2. The Golden Years Doctrine must be balanced against countervailing factors.

Importantly, even the court in Giles recognized that the effect of old age on a person’s damages requires a balancing act. The Golden Years Doctrine isn’t a be-all, end-all argument that means an elderly plaintiff gets enhanced damages as compared to a younger plaintiff with similar injuries.

More recent cases have made that balancing act more explicit. For example, in Johal v. Radek, the British Columbia court surveyed cases discussing the effect of the Golden Years Doctrine:

“Some cases rely on the “Golden Years” doctrine, which suggests that an injury may have a greater impact on an older person, whose activities are already constrained by age, than on a younger person who may be active in other respects . . . . Other cases suggest that the competing considerations of the plaintiff’s age and the application of the “Golden Years” doctrine may balance each other out.”

The Johal court agreed with the latter perspective.

Application of the Golden Years Doctrine in Ontario

Although the Golden Years Doctrine has received the most detailed analysis in British Columbia, Ontario courts have recognized its application in appropriate cases. For example, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice implicitly applied the doctrine in Wilson Estate v. Byrne.

In Wilson, the plaintiffs argued (based in part on Giles) that “physical injuries can be even more damaging when they occur near the end of one’s life.” Relying on the Golden Years Doctrine, the plaintiffs claimed damages of $85,000. The defendant disputed that amount, arguing that $50,000 would be more appropriate.

In the end, the Ontario court awarded the plaintiffs $75,000 — much closer to their Golden-Years-based figure than to the defendant’s suggestion.

And Wilson isn’t the only example. In Nusinowitz v. Ontario, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, relying on the same English case as the British Columbia court in Giles, also applied the Golden Years Doctrine in determining the appropriate amount of damages.

What the Golden Years Doctrine Means for You

The Golden Years Doctrine is an important protection for elderly plaintiffs and their loved ones in Ontario personal injury lawsuits. It means that negligent defendants don’t get to shortchange those that they injure just because of advanced age. The law recognizes the unique additional harms caused by physical injuries to older Ontarians, and requires that they be compensated for those harms.

Yet, recognition of the Golden Years Doctrine does not mean that defendants do not argue for decreased damages. The doctrine itself may be counterbalanced by other factors, as we explored above, and defendants rely on cases emphasizing those other factors to try to limit their liability. By working with the experienced personal injury lawyers of Preszler Injury Lawyers in Ontario, you and your loved ones may be able to help protect yourselves against such opportunistic arguments and ensure you receive the damages you are rightfully owed.

 
Call us now at
1-800-JUSTICE
®

151 Eglinton Ave W,
Toronto, ON
M4R 1A6
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
4145 N Service Rd
Burlington, ON
L7L 4X6
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
2 County Ct Blvd #400,
Brampton, ON
L6W 3W8
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
105 Consumers Drive
Whitby, ON
L1N 1C4
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
92 Caplan Ave #121,
Barrie, ON
L4N 0Z7
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
380 Wellington St Tower B, 6th Floor,
London, ON
N6A 5B5
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
2233 Argentia Rd Suite 302,
East Tower Mississauga, ON
L5N 6A6
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
1 Hunter St E,
Hamilton, ON
L8N 3W1
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
459 George St N,
Peterborough, ON
K9H 3R9
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
22 Frederick Street,
Suite 700
Kitchener, ON N2H 6M6
Fax: 1-855-364-7027
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
352 Elgin Street,
Ottawa ON
K2P 1M8
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
10 Milner Business Ct #300,
Scarborough, ON
M1B 3C6
Toll Free: 1-888-608-2111
*consultation offices

DISCLAIMER: Please be advised that the header image and other images throughout this website may include both lawyer and non-lawyer/paralegal employees of Preszler Injury Lawyers and DPJP Professional Corporation and unrelated third parties. Our spokesperson John Fraser, or any other non-lawyer/paralegals in our marketing is not to be construed in any way as misleading to the public. Our marketing efforts are not intended to suggest qualitative superiority to other lawyers, paralegals or law firms in any way. Any questions regarding the usage of non-lawyers in our legal marketing or otherwise can be directed to our management team. Please also note that past results are not indicative of future results and that each case is unique. Please be advised that some of the content on this website may be out of date. None of the content is intended to act as legal advice as each situation is independent and unique and requires individual legal advice from a licensed lawyer or paralegal. For legal advice on your individual situation – we can provide legal guidance after you have contacted our firm and we have established a lawyer-client relationship contractually. Maximum contingency fee charged is 33%. Finally, our usage of awards and logos for awards does not suggest qualitative superiority to other lawyers, paralegals or law firms. All awards received from third party organizations have been done so through their own reasonable evaluative process and do not include any payment for these awards except for the use of the award logos for our marketing assets.