English: No proper evidence was submitted as to how his claim of $362,000 (increased from $250,000 in his original statement of claim) was calculated, no information being given as to his rate of pay at the time of termination of his employment, subsequent escalations which would have been received had he been retained in such employment, the present worth of his loss of future pension right, or any other mathematical computations, the only indication of how the calculation was made (and this was not supported by evidence at trial) being found in paragraph 23 of the Amended statement of claim which refers to a letter sent to the Honourable Andre Ouellette then Postmaster General on November 25th, 1974: ...indicating that the Plaintiff would not resign, and calling upon him to reinstate the Plaintiff in his original position with safety and to pay him all loss of salary up to that date, namely January 1, 1974, to wit, $20,300.00, pointing out at the same time that since the Plaintiff was only 49 at the time and his retirement age would only have been at age 65, with continual increase in seniority and the amount of his pension, at that time estimated that the damages suffered in addition to the loss of salary were $126,000.00; that now, at the point when this action was first instituted they would amount to considerably more, namely, a total of $250,000.00; but as a matter of fact, as of this date, Plaintiff is of 53 years of age, and the loss in salary alone amounts to approximately $70,000.00, and is entitled, and has a right to collect his salary up to age 65, date of retirement, and in view of the fact that salaries are constantly growing with the cost of living, and would average at least $16,000.00 per annum, which for the 12 years up to age 65, would be $192,000.00, making a total loss of earnings alone of $262,000.00; whereafter he would have been entitled to his pension, which would have a value of $200,000.00 by way of payments in instalments, therefore, of a value of $100,000.00 cash, particularly, as Plaintiff is a very healthy person with longevity in the family, his father having passed away at 75, and his mother still being alive at 77.
French: Aucune preuve appropriée n'a été présentée relativement à la méthode de calcul de la réclamation de $362,000 (originalement de $250,000, dans la première déclaration); aucun renseignement n'a été fourni quant au taux de rémunération du demandeur au moment où s'est terminé son emploi, ni quant aux augmentations éventuelles qu'il aurait obtenues s'il avait conservé cet emploi, ni quant à la valeur actuelle de la perte de son droit éventuel à une pension, ni aucun autre chiffre; le seul indice sur la méthode de calcul utilisée (et aucune preuve à l'appui n'a été présentée au procès) se trouvant au paragraphe 23 de la déclaration révisée, lequel évoque une lettre envoyée le 25 novembre 1974 au ministre des Postes d'alors, André Ouellet: [TRADUCTION] ...indiquant que le demandeur ne démissionnerait pas et lui demandant de réintégrer ledit demandeur en son poste originaire, en garantissant sa sécurité, et en lui remboursant toutes pertes de salaire à ce jour, 1er janvier 1974, soit $20,300; signalant par la même occasion que le demandeur n'ayant que quarante-neuf ans à l'époque et l'âge de la retraite étant normalement de 65 ans, les années d'ancienneté et le montant de la pension auraient augmenté jusqu'à cet âge; qu'au moment où ont été subis les dommages, en sus de la perte de salaire, ces derniers s'élevaient à $126,000; que maintenant, au moment de l'introduction de la présente action, ils étaient beaucoup plus considérables, ayant atteint un total de $250,000; en fait, à ce jour, le demandeur a 53 ans; la seule perte de salare s'élève approximativement à $70,000 et il a droit à percevoir son salaire jusqu'à l'âge de 65 ans, date de la retraite; compte tenu de la montée des salaires avec le coût de la vie, le sien s'élèverait au moins à $16,000 par année, ce qui, pour les douze ans qui le séparent de ses 65 ans ferait $192,000.