At one point, it was common for people to retire at the age of 65. As medical knowledge and financial obligations have increased, many people are working beyond this age, and retirement ages among individuals vary considerably. The courts are often left in a position where they have to estimate retirement ages for individuals, whose retirement has been accelerated due to injuries sustained in a car accident.
Generally, this task involves the assessment of a variety of factors and is done on a case by case basis. In this recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision, the appeal tribunal ruled that the trial judge had erred in his decision by putting too much emphasis on the average age for retirement within the plaintiff’s union, and not taking into account individual factors that would likely extend the plaintiff’s working age:
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2018/2018bcca366/2018bcca366.pdf
In this case, the trial judge found that the plaintiff, who retired at the age of 65, would have done so regardless of any accident injuries, as the average age for retirement in his union was 61. The judge failed to take into account: 1) that the plaintiff had started working in his union (and contributing to his pension) in his 40s, which was much later than average age; and that the plaintiff lived alone and was, therefore, less likely to retire early to spend time with his family. The judge’s decision was overturned, and the plaintiff was awarded compensation for a hypothetical retirement age of 69 years old.
