At the end of the trial the Defendant sought to avoid paying the police
sick bank amount on the basis that s. 106 of the Insurance (Vehicle) Act Regulations allows ICBC to avoid paying amounts for which a person has an «insured claim» through another source.
ICBC was ordered to repay
the sick bank amount.
Not exact matches
[127] I conclude that Ms. Kilian is entitled to an
amount of $ 9,087 to replenish her
sick bank.
Mr. Calder agrees the plaintiff is only entitled to net past wage loss but argues that the award to replenish the
sick bank is the gross
amount of past wage loss, not the net
amount.
At trial, the judge had awarded close to $ 18,000 in
banked sick time as a gross
amount.
Subsequent Reasons to the original trial judgment addressed the issue of whether or not the
banked sick time was recoverable as a gross
amount or net
amount.
[8] The recent decision of DeGuzman v. Ge, 2013 BCSC 1450, follows Bjarnason and elaborates on the rationale for awarding the gross and not the net
amount of damages in respect of loss
sick bank entitlement.
To only compensate her for the net
amount of her
sick bank time would result in deductions being taken from her twice — now and later when she uses them in the future.
This is because when she does use her replenished
sick bank time, she will have income tax and other deductions taken from her by the employer and will only receive the net
amount.
This includes the subrogated interest of the plaintiff «s employer for repayment of her accumulated
sick bank time in the
amount of $ 33,354.73.