Case information

Damages — Compensatory damages — Award for loss of housekeeping capacity set aside by the Court of Appeal — Whether the Court of Appeal went against the fundamental principles of tort law in disallowing a loss of housekeeping award based on a loss of capital asset to do housekeeping chores related to farm work — Whether the Court of Appeal relied on an artificial distinction between domestic and commercial aspects of farming resulting in a framework that is either unworkable or internally contradictory — Whether the Court of Appeal went against Charter values in holding that farm work for a commercial enterprise is non-compensable as a housekeeping award.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Ms. Ker’s vehicle collided with Mr. Sidhu’s vehicle (the “Accident”). Mr. Sidhu sued Ms. Ker in negligence. At trial, Ms. Ker admitted liability. At the time of the Accident, Mr. Sidhu was 19 years old. He lived on his family’s blueberry farm and helped his parents with work on the farm. Mr. Sidhu was also a university student and was working part-time at a restaurant. After the Accident, Mr. Sidhu took on an administrative role at the farm in place of the physical labour that he had provided before. He has held full-time employment as a data analyst. The trial judge awarded Mr. Sidhu $258,132 under various heads of damages. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. The award for loss of housekeeping capacity was set aside. An award of $1,200.00 for future orthotics was ordered.