Counsel for the appellant physicians argues that the failure to bring these disability payments into account clearly resulted in double compensation which is contrary to the inherent principles of damage recovery. In support of his position, he places heavy reliance upon Ratych v. Bloomer, 1990 CanLII 97 (SCC),  1 S.C.R. 940; 107 N.R. 335; 39 O.A.C. 103; 69 D.L.R.(4th) 25; 30 C.C.E.L. 161; 3 C.C.L.T.(2d) 1.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.