Day 30
Note: I am a poor note-taker and these summaries will contain errors and omissions which will reflect my limitations. My intention is to report on the facts as accurately as possible although a subconscious bias may creep in. I can only provide glimpses into what I see as relevant and interesting events. My goal is to capture the essence of the day’s events rather than be comprehensive.
Read the reference documents: The Legal Case and Events Leading to Trial to obtain an understanding of the case and its history. Names and terms are abbreviated and defined in Glossary.
Evidence of Mr. Derek Aldridge
Mr. Aldridge was called as an expert witness for the defence to provide opinion evidence on the quantification of Caylan’s loss of income arising from the alleged defamation. His evidence was tendered to counter the expert report and testimony of Mr. Devonshire, who testified for the Plaintiff on the same issue. As expected, Mr. Aldridge’s loss estimates were significantly lower than those of Mr. Devonshire.
Direct Examination of Mr. Aldridge by Ms. Tiessen (Counsel for the Broadbent Institute and Messrs. Lebrun and Magusiak)
Mr. Aldridge holds a BA and MA in economics and works primarily in personal injury litigation, quantifying income loss and other pecuniary damages. His evidence regarding his qualifications included:
He outlined his education and work experience.
He has prepared approximately 2,000 expert reports and has testified in court and before the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal.
He has been qualified as an expert in 27 Alberta court cases.
Cross‑Examination on Qualifications
Mr. Aldridge acknowledged that his evidence had not been accepted in several cases in which he testified.
He acknowledged that he could not recall any case in which he had been retained to quantify damages arising from reputational loss.
Mr. Aldridge was accepted by the Court as an expert qualified to provide opinion evidence on pecuniary loss. His report was entered as an exhibit.
Further Evidence
Mr. Aldridge did not dispute the past loss calculations provided by Mr. Devonshire.
Dr. Mandel (Plaintiff’s medical expert) opined that Caylan could be expected to earn 20%–30% less than she would have earned absent the defamation.
Dr. Brown (Defendants’ medical expert) suggested Caylan would suffer only a negligible loss of vocational capacity.
Mr. Aldridge selected 5%, 10%, and 20% loss‑of‑capacity figures—positioning himself between the opinions of Dr. Mandel and Dr. Brown.
Unlike Mr. Devonshire, he did not construct specific employment scenarios.
He assumed Caylan would fall within a specific StatsCan occupational category.
He relied on census income data providing average and above‑average income levels for the chosen occupational category.
He placed Caylan in the category of “policy researchers, analysts, consultants, and program officers.”
He assumed this was the occupation she would have pursued absent the defamation.
The category includes full‑time workers, part‑time workers, and unemployed persons.
He assumed Caylan would earn more than 75% of her peers and less than 25% of peers of the same age and occupation.
He then applied 5%, 10%, and 20% deductions to those income levels.
He also applied a disability contingency.
He discounted future losses to present value using a 2.5% discount rate.
He included scenarios in which Caylan’s loss of income ended at age 65 (retirement), age 46, or age 43—these latter ages were included at the request of his clients.
Mr. Aldridge’s Conclusions (Loss to Age 65)
5% loss of vocational ability deduction: $166,127
10% loss of vocational ability deduction: $ 332,055
20% loss of vocational ability deduction: $ 664,109
Cross‑Examination of Mr. Aldridge by Mr. Harrison (Counsel for Caylan)
Key points from cross‑examination:
Mr. Aldridge did not specifically address reputational harm; he equated reputational harm with emotional harm.
He agreed that Caylan’s losses would be greater if reputational damage limited her future employability.
Dr. Mandel’s 20%–30% loss estimate did not include any allowance for reputational harm because Dr. Mandel was not qualified to opine on reputational effects.
Mr. Aldridge did not consider the impact of Caylan’s inability to work full‑time.
He did not use a StatsCan category for part‑time workers.
The category “policy program researchers, officers and consultants” is:
lower than Caylan’s current role as Chief Development Officer,
lower than the income levels of MLAs, lawyers, university professors, and deputy ministers.
StatsCan does not have a category for individuals in the 98th percentile for IQ.
StatsCan does not have a category for individuals with two Master’s degrees.
After a brief re‑direct, Mr. Aldridge’s testimony concluded and he was excused.
Comparison of Expert Approaches
Mr. Devonshire’s loss‑of‑income estimates were based on detailed employment scenarios and divided into past losses (2019–2025) and future losses.
Devonshire – Past Loss Damages
Scenario A: $ 814,141
Scenario B: $ 387,085
Scenario C: $ 537,160
Scenario D: $ 1,502,265
Mr. Aldridge did not dispute these past‑loss figures.
Future Losses – Divergent Approaches
Aldridge: placed Caylan into a StatsCan occupational category and applied various percentage deductions.
Devonshire: projected future losses based on specific employment scenarios, with deductions as stated by Dr. Mandel.
Future Loss of Income – Comparison
Future Loss of Income – Comparison
| Mr. Aldridge | Mr. Devonshire |
|---|---|
| 5% deduction : $166,027 | Scenario A: $3,115,557 |
| 10% deduction: $332,055 | Scenario B: $2,882,725 |
| 20% deduction: $664,109 | Scenario C: $4,265,060 |
Comment
Several factors are relevant in assessing the weight of Mr. Aldridge’s report and conclusions:
He assumed Caylan’s employability and income would not be affected by reputational damage.
He did not account for Caylan’s inability to work full‑time.
He placed her in an occupational category equivalent to—or lower than—the category she occupied in her twenties as a senior policy advisor at Global Affairs.
He placed her in a category lower than her current employment level.
He did not consider her academic credentials or exceptional intellectual abilities.