Mazerall v Nightingale: The New Brunswick Court of Appeal’s Foundational Statement on Grief and Loss of Companionship Damages for the Death of a Child

By Dr. Aris Lavranos June 17, 2026

Mazerall v Nightingale is a New Brunswick decision on the assessment of personal-injury damages.

On November 19, 1988, Marc and Betty Nightingale were driving with their two children (Kale Joseph Douglas, age six, and Alicia Jean, age nine months) when their vehicle was struck from behind. Both children were killed. Liability was admitted by the defendant Olive Mazerall.

What followed was not a trial about who was responsible. It was a trial about what the law can offer when negligence destroys a family. The damages assessed at trial, the appeal that followed, and the judgment that the New Brunswick Court of Appeal delivered on December 12, 1991 gave New Brunswick fatal accident law its foundational principles for the assessment of grief and loss of companionship damages under the Fatal Accidents Act.

Mazerall v Nightingale is the seminal authority on how New Brunswick courts approach the most difficult category of fatal accident claim: the death of a child, and what the law can provide to the parents left behind.

The Legislative Foundation: Section 3(4) of the Fatal Accidents Act

The Common Law Starting Point

Before the mid-nineteenth century, the common law provided no civil remedy for the family of a person killed through another’s negligence. The maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona (the personal action dies with the person) extinguished the deceased’s cause of action at death. Lord Ellenborough stated the consequence plainly in Baker v Bolton (1808): “In a civil court, the death of a human being could not be complained of as an injury.”

The practical perversity was immediate. A driver who injured a pedestrian faced civil liability; a driver who killed the pedestrian faced none. Death, the greater harm, was the uncompensated one. Lord Campbell’s Act 1846 corrected this by creating a new statutory cause of action for the family’s financial losses. The original model was purely pecuniary: dependants could recover for the income or services the deceased would have provided, but not for grief, not for the loss of the relationship itself, and not for the emotional aftermath of the death.

The 1986 Amendment: Adding Grief and Loss of Companionship

New Brunswick’s Fatal Accidents Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. F-7, was amended by S.N.B. 1986, c. 36, s. 1, to add a provision that had not previously existed in New Brunswick law. Section 3(4), as in force at the time of the Nightingale litigation, provided:

“Where an action has been brought under this Act for the benefit of one or more parents of the deceased and the deceased is a child (a) under the age of nineteen, or (b) nineteen years of age or over who was dependent upon one or more parents for support, there may be included in the damages… an amount to compensate for the loss of companionship that the deceased might reasonably have been expected to give to the parents and an amount to compensate for the grief suffered by the parents as a result of the death.”

Section 3(5) governed apportionment: “An amount included in the damages under subsection (4) shall be apportioned among the parents in proportion to the loss of companionship incurred and grief suffered by each parent as a result of the death.”

These provisions are now renumbered as Section 10(1) and 10(2) of the Fatal Accidents Act, RSNB 2012, c 104. The substance remains the same. The 1986 amendment was the legal vehicle that made the Nightingale litigation possible, and through that litigation, the amendment received its operative content from the courts.

At the time of the trial, counsel advised Turnbull J. that this would be a case of first impression in New Brunswick. There was no existing New Brunswick jurisprudence on the quantum of grief and loss of companionship awards for the death of a child. The court was writing on a blank page.

Mazerall shows how closely the courts scrutinize each head of fatal-accident damages.

The Facts: The Nightingale Family

Marc and Betty Nightingale

Marc Kevin Nightingale was thirty-three years old at the time of the accident. He was an industrial mechanic who held his millwright’s ticket and was employed at Rothesay Pulp and Paper Ltd. Betty Jean Nightingale was thirty-two, a housewife. They were married in the early 1980s. The trial judge described them as “a lovely and loving young couple,” but was careful to add that he would elaborate no further on their relationship, because doing so “would merely be describing vignettes encompassed in every loving relationship between parents and children. There was nothing exceptional in this case.”

That observation, “there was nothing exceptional,” is important. It was not meant dismissively. It was the trial judge’s signal that the Nightingales were a normal, loving family: not exceptional in their closeness or their parenting, not distinguished by unusual circumstances, but representative of what parents and children are when a family is functioning and loving and whole. It was also a signal that the damages assessment should not rest on the specific vivid details of any particular family’s routines, but on principles that can apply broadly.

Kale and Alicia Nightingale

Kale Joseph Douglas Nightingale was six years old. Alicia Jean Nightingale was nine months old. They were the Nightingales’ only two children.

On November 19, 1988, the family was travelling together when their vehicle was struck from behind by a car driven by the defendant Olive Mazerall. Both children were killed in the collision. The impact that killed them left their parents alive. After the accident, the Nightingales had a daughter named Chelsea, who became the centre of their attention but, as the evidence made clear, did not ease the grief.

The Grief Described

Dr. Stephen Fleming, a psychologist who had studied bereavement extensively and was declared an expert in the psychology of grief, testified about the general process of grief and assessed both parents specifically.

He described an initial period of shock, numbness and disorientation, followed by a reorganization phase over the following years. Both Marc and Betty’s grief was characterized as “uncomplicated,” not meaning it was minor, but meaning it was following the recognized pattern of bereaved parents rather than a pathological trajectory. The active grief stage, Dr. Fleming testified, typically extends into the third year after death.

The parents’ individual responses differed. Betty cried more openly, found it helpful to speak about the children, and by the spring of 1990 was successfully working through the active phase of grief. Marc maintained a facade that he was managing well, what American authorities described as “a silent scream,” which was taxing his resources. His grief had not abated as Betty’s had, and he was described as at higher risk of developing complications. Both parents had been hospitalized for several days after the accident and attended the funeral. Both felt anger toward the defendant and Marc felt guilt that the accident was somehow his fault because he was driving.

Dr. Fleming noted that the death of a child can be more traumatic than even the death of a spouse. He had not specifically researched the simultaneous death of two children but queried whether the grief could be more profound. His view was that the grief was not cumulative (mourning two children at once is not twice the grief of mourning one) but may prolong the period of active grieving.

The Trial Decision: Turnbull J., November 8, 1990

What the Trial Judge Assessed

Justice Turnbull was required to assess damages for each parent under two heads: (1) loss of care, guidance and companionship; and (2) grief.

His approach was straightforward in structure but recognized as novel in application. He noted there was “no authority to guide” him on grief quantum. He was conscious that Canadian jurisprudence sets modest upper limits for pain and suffering compared to American jury awards. He accepted that time lessens the severity of grief and did not follow Dr. Fleming’s view that the intensity can remain constant over time.

For loss of care, guidance and companionship, the trial judge noted that “while care and guidance are remote, companionship is not.” He awarded each parent $5,000 for loss of companionship of Kale and $5,000 for the loss of Alicia.

For grief, Turnbull J. awarded $50,000 to each of Marc and Betty Nightingale. He was of the opinion that the amendment to the Act was “to be interpreted to allow substantial damages.” He increased the award “somewhat” because the tragedy involved two children, but declined to be more specific given that this was a case of first impression.

The Total Trial Award

The judgment was $60,000 to Marc Nightingale and $60,000 to Betty Nightingale, each against the defendant Olive Mazerall, with interest at 10% not compounded from December 8, 1988. Costs were on Scale 3 based on an amount of $100,000, with disbursements.

The defendants appealed.

A divided New Brunswick Court of Appeal split 2-1 on the proper measure of damages.

The Court of Appeal Decision: 1991 CanLII 2716, December 12, 1991

The Panel and the Result

The appeal was heard by Angers, Rice and Ayles JJ.A. The court divided 2-1: Angers J.A. wrote the majority, with Ayles J.A. concurring; Rice J.A. dissented in part. The appeal was allowed in part.

The Majority: Angers J.A. (Ayles J.A. Concurring)

Angers J.A. addressed the fundamental question the case posed: on what basis should amounts for grief and loss of companionship be evaluated under s. 3(4) of the Fatal Accidents Act?

The starting point was the nature of non-pecuniary damages generally. Drawing on the Supreme Court of Canada’s statements in Arnold v Teno (1978 CanLII 2, SCC), Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd (1978 CanLII 1, SCC), and Thornton v School District No 57 (1978 CanLII 12, SCC), Angers J.A. emphasized that non-pecuniary damage awards cannot be compensatory in any literal sense: there is no market for happiness, no exchange rate for grief. The award must be fair and reasonable, but also “arbitrary or conventional.” It must be calibrated to reflect the social burden of large awards, and the need for certainty and predictability in the law.

Angers J.A. directly addressed the concern about subjectivity. Grief is personal and intimate, but there is an “inner element common to all” that courts can assess without requiring a parade of grief. The dangers of excessive subjectivity, compelling bereaved parents to publicly articulate the depths of their anguish in competition with each other, are real and should be resisted. He quoted the passage from Cooper-Stevenson and Saunders to the effect that it would be “lamentable if the trial of a personal injury claim put a premium on protestations of misery and if a long face was the only safe passport to a large award.” The goal was certainty and predictability, so that a parent who finds it “objectionable and demeaning to publicly articulate his grief” is not penalized compared to one who more easily exteriorizes their emotions.

The Correct Structure of a Section 3(4) Award

Angers J.A. corrected what he saw as a structural error in the trial judgment. The trial judge had assessed amounts separately “for each parent,” as though each parent had their own individual entitlement. But s. 3(4) and s. 3(5) work differently: s. 3(4) establishes one amount for loss of companionship and one amount for grief in respect of each deceased child. Those amounts are then apportioned between the parents under s. 3(5). The legislature did not create individual entitlements; it created a pool for each head of damage per child, to be divided among the parents.

The apportionment should be in proportion to the grief and loss of companionship actually suffered by each parent. But the practical logic strongly favours equal division in the normal case: when both parents have lost the same child, the presumption is that the loss is equally shared absent specific evidence to the contrary.

The Specific Awards: Per Child, Per Head

Having established the structure, Angers J.A. turned to quantum. The child’s age was relevant to the loss of companionship: the older the child, the shorter the remaining period of anticipated companionship before age 19.

For Kale, age six: There was nothing to indicate he would not have provided companionship to his parents for the remaining 13 years to age 19. Angers J.A. fixed the amount for loss of companionship to the parents at $15,000, and the amount for grief at $15,000. Total for Kale: $30,000, divided equally between Marc and Betty ($15,000 each).

For Alicia, age nine months: The evidence supported the conclusion that she could reasonably have been expected to provide companionship to her parents until she reached age 19: approximately 18 years of anticipated companionship remaining, significantly more than Kale’s 13 remaining years. Angers J.A. fixed the amount for loss of her companionship at $20,000 (higher than Kale’s, reflecting the greater expected period). The amount for grief was fixed at $15,000, the same as for Kale. Total for Alicia: $35,000, divided equally between Marc and Betty ($17,500 each).

Each parent’s total under the majority judgment was therefore $15,000 (Kale share) + $17,500 (Alicia share) = $32,500.

Costs

Costs at trial were awarded to the respondents on Scale 3 but based on an amount of $60,000 plus disbursements. Costs of the appeal to the appellant at 40% of trial costs plus disbursements.

The Dissent: Rice J.A. (Dissenting in Part)

Rice J.A. agreed that the trial judgment needed to be varied, but disagreed with how far to reduce it. In his view, the assessment of grief required a case-by-case approach, with the specific evidence of each parent’s grief informing the award. He relied on the Supreme Court of Canada’s statement in Woelk v Halvorson (1980 CanLII 17, SCC) that legislatures which create new causes of action for non-pecuniary losses do not intend those awards to be trivial or insignificant.

Rice J.A. found that Dr. Fleming’s evidence, the psychologist’s detailed assessment of Marc and Betty’s sustained, serious grief, supported a higher award than Angers J.A. reached. He would have varied the award for grief to $35,000 to each parent, leaving the companionship amounts unchanged from trial. His approach would have produced a total judgment of $45,000 for each of Marc and Betty Nightingale.

Rice J.A. also explicitly rejected the majority’s preference for a highly objective, conventional approach. He accepted that conventional sums are desirable for predictability, but found that if the legislature had intended a fully conventional, predetermined assessment, it would have set a fixed amount by statute, as Alberta did by setting a $3,000 grief ceiling. New Brunswick’s legislature chose not to do that, leaving the assessment to the courts and thereby preserving the space for case-by-case evaluation of individual grief.

The Legal Principles Established

Principle One: Two Distinct Heads of Damage

Section 3(4), now s. 10(1), provides for two separately compensable heads of damage: loss of companionship and grief. These are not simply different names for the same loss. Loss of companionship is the forward-looking relational harm: the forfeiture of the bond between parent and child that would have deepened over the years ahead. Grief is the direct emotional suffering of the bereavement itself: the pain of mourning and the disruption of the survivor’s life.

Each is assessed separately and each can differ between children based on the evidence. The separate treatment of these heads prevents them from collapsing into a single undifferentiated award and maintains the analytical precision that the legislative structure contemplates.

Principle Two: Awards Must Be Assessed for Each Deceased Child Separately

There is one amount for loss of companionship and one amount for grief in respect of each deceased child. Where two children have died, there are two sets of amounts, one for each child. Those amounts may differ depending on the specific evidence related to each child, particularly the child’s age and the expected duration of companionship.

The majority’s approach in Mazerall illustrates this: Alicia’s companionship award ($20,000) was higher than Kale’s ($15,000) because she was nine months old when she died and had approximately 18 years of anticipated companionship remaining, compared to Kale’s 13 remaining years to age 19. The grief awards were the same for both children ($15,000 each).

Principle Three: The Relevant Time Period for Companionship Is the Years to Age 19

The companionship provision applies to deceased children under the age of 19 (or dependent children over 19). Angers J.A.’s reasoning makes clear that the expected duration of companionship, the years between the child’s death and what would have been their nineteenth birthday, is relevant to the quantum of the loss of companionship award. A younger child, with more years of anticipated companionship remaining, will generally attract a higher loss of companionship award than an older child.

Principle Four: Amounts Are Awarded Per Child and Then Divided Between Parents

Section 3(5) requires apportionment among the parents in proportion to the loss of companionship and grief suffered by each. The majority confirmed that amounts should be assessed as a pool per child per head of damage, then divided between the parents, not assessed individually to each parent as though each has a separate entitlement. The default position is equal division; unequal apportionment requires affirmative evidence of meaningfully different loss between the two parents.

Principle Five: Objective Standards Are Preferred to Subjective Demonstration

The majority’s emphasis on objectivity and predictability shapes how these awards are approached. The goal is that bereaved parents who find the litigation process demeaning or who are more private in their grief should not be penalized compared to those who can more readily articulate and externalize their loss. The framework is designed so that the claim does not become “a battle between parents to determine who grieved the most.”

Psychological expert evidence on the general process of grief, such as Dr. Fleming’s testimony about the stages of bereavement, is useful to establish an objective framework. The specific facts and circumstances of the family matter, but the assessment should not devolve into an intrusive examination of the private inner lives of the parents.

Principle Six: The Standard Is Canadian and Modest

Angers J.A. explicitly grounded his analysis in the Supreme Court of Canada’s statements in the 1978 damages trilogy (Andrews, Arnold v Teno, Thornton) about the social burden of high non-pecuniary awards and the importance of Canadian conventional awards calibrated to the specific case. Non-pecuniary awards in New Brunswick fatal accident claims are not to be assessed by reference to American jury awards or to the higher quantum available in Ontario. They are to reflect a “fair and reasonable Canadian award” appropriate to the New Brunswick context.

The Significance of the 2-1 Split

The disagreement between Angers J.A. and Rice J.A. is not merely a difference in arithmetic. It reflects a genuine tension in how the law should approach grief damages, a tension that the court left unresolved by majority vote rather than consensus.

Angers J.A.’s majority approach favours objectivity, predictability, and conventional amounts calibrated to New Brunswick precedent. It resists the parade of individual grief, resists sympathy as a substitute for principle, and produces awards that are relatively predictable from case to case.

Rice J.A.’s dissenting approach honours the case-by-case legislative mandate, respects the evidence of the specific parents before the court, and produces awards more responsive to the actual degree of harm shown. His approach produces higher awards in cases of demonstrated serious grief, but requires the very examination of inner emotional life that the majority sought to avoid.

In practice, the majority approach has governed, but the dissent is a reminder that the law’s treatment of grief as a quantifiable legal harm involves genuine philosophical difficulty that no purely conventional approach can fully resolve.

The Case in the Context of New Brunswick Fatal Accident Law

What Mazerall Establishes

Mazerall v Nightingale is the foundational authority for Section 10 claims under the New Brunswick Fatal Accidents Act. It established the two-headed structure of the claim, the per-child per-head assessment methodology, the relevance of the child’s age to companionship quantum, the preference for objective standards over highly individualized grief assessment, and the modest Canadian conventional award that calibrates these amounts to the New Brunswick context.

The majority’s specific awards ($30,000 for Kale and $35,000 for Alicia, each divided equally between the parents) provide the reference points from which subsequent cases departed as circumstances warranted. The benchmark that would emerge from Mazerall and the companion case that followed, Guimond v Guimond Estate, 1996 CanLII 4858 (NBCA), placed the approximate quantum per deceased child in the range of $30,000, divided between the parents.

The Broader Provincial Context

New Brunswick stands somewhat apart from other Atlantic Canada provinces in providing both a distinct grief head and a distinct loss of companionship head for parents of a deceased child. Nova Scotia’s Fatal Injuries Act subsumes both within a general loss of care, guidance and companionship head; the quantum is assessed differently and against different precedent.

New Brunswick also permits punitive damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, a head unavailable in Nova Scotia, where recovery is purely compensatory. This makes New Brunswick’s total fatal accident framework distinctive: relatively modest on the Section 10 non-pecuniary component, but broader in the range of available heads of damage overall.

For the Nova Scotia framework, including the distinct rule established in MacLean v MacDonald, 2002 NSCA 30 (CanLII) — https://canlii.ca/t/4v1f , that estate recovery under the Survival of Actions Act is limited to actual pecuniary losses, see the companion article in this series on MacLean v MacDonald.

For the discoverability principles governing when the fatal accident limitation period begins to run in Nova Scotia, see Burt and Seward v LeLacheur, 2000 NSCA 90 (CanLII) — https://canlii.ca/t/1vhhm.

Conclusion

Marc and Betty Nightingale lost both their children on the same day. No legal framework can address what that actually means: the grief, the missing futures, the decades of loss that followed from a single afternoon when their car was struck from behind. What Mazerall v Nightingale did was give that loss its legal expression: two separately compensable heads of damage, assessed per child and then divided equally between the parents, calibrated to conventional Canadian amounts that recognize the loss without attempting the impossible task of matching the compensation to the depth of the harm.

The trial judge awarded $50,000 per parent for grief. The majority of the Court of Appeal reduced that to $15,000 per parent per child in grief, on the basis that conventional, predictable, objective awards better serve the legislative purpose than awards calibrated to the subjective demonstration of individual suffering. Rice J.A. would have gone further than the trial judge’s reduction but not as far as the majority. The debate between them remains embedded in the law, a permanent reminder that translating grief into money is a philosophical exercise that no legal formula can fully resolve.

What is resolved, definitively and authoritatively, is the framework within which New Brunswick courts assess Section 10 claims when a child dies. That framework, two heads, per child, per parent, at modest conventional amounts, is the legacy of Mazerall v Nightingale.

Quick Reference: Mazerall v Nightingale

Case Details

Trial: Nightingale v Mazerall and Elliott, 1990 CanLII 5461 (NB QB), (1990) 113 NBR (2d) 123 — https://canlii.ca/t/26mvb | File S/C/1342/88 | Turnbull J. | Heard June 19–21, 1989 | Decision November 8, 1990
Appeal: Mazerall v Nightingale, 1991 CanLII 2716 (NB CA), (1991) 121 NBR (2d) 319, 87 DLR (4th) 158, 304 APR 319 — https://canlii.ca/t/1p1rx | File 230/90/CA | December 12, 1991
Panel: Angers J.A. (majority), Ayles J.A. (concurring), Rice J.A. (dissenting in part) | Result: Appeal allowed in part (2-1)
Governing legislation: s. 3(4) and s. 3(5) of the Fatal Accidents Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. F-7 (now s. 10(1) and s. 10(2) of the Fatal Accidents Act, RSNB 2012, c 104)

The Parties

Defendants/Appellants: Olive Mazerall and Donald Elliott
Plaintiffs/Respondents: Marc Kevin Nightingale (33, industrial mechanic, millwright’s ticket, Rothesay Pulp and Paper Ltd.) and Betty Jean Nightingale (32, housewife)
Deceased: Kale Joseph Douglas Nightingale (age 6) and Alicia Jean Nightingale (age 9 months)
Counsel: Barry R. Morrison for plaintiffs/respondents; Michael E. Bowlin and Lucie Richard for appellant

Key Facts

November 19, 1988: Nightingale family vehicle struck from behind; both children killed
Parents described as a “lovely and loving young couple”; “there was nothing exceptional in this case” (Turnbull J.)
Liability admitted by defendant Mazerall
Expert: Dr. Stephen Fleming, psychologist (grief and bereavement specialist); grief of both parents characterized as “uncomplicated,” devastating but not pathological
A daughter Chelsea was born to the Nightingales after the accident

Trial Awards (Turnbull J.)

Loss of companionship: $5,000 per parent for Kale; $5,000 per parent for Alicia
Grief: $50,000 to each parent for the death of both children combined
Total: $60,000 each to Marc and Betty Nightingale, plus 10% interest not compounded from December 8, 1988

Court of Appeal Awards (Majority — Angers J.A.)

For Kale (age 6, 13 years of expected companionship remaining to age 19): $15,000 for loss of companionship + $15,000 for grief = $30,000 total, divided equally between parents ($15,000 each)
For Alicia (age 9 months, approximately 18 years of expected companionship remaining): $20,000 for loss of companionship + $15,000 for grief = $35,000 total, divided equally between parents ($17,500 each)
Each parent: $15,000 (Kale) + $17,500 (Alicia) = $32,500 total

Court of Appeal Awards (Rice J.A., Dissenting in Part)

Would have varied grief to $35,000 per parent (from $50,000 at trial)
Would have left companionship awards unchanged
Total under Rice J.A.’s approach: $45,000 per parent

Principles Established

Grief and loss of companionship are two distinct and separately compensable heads of damage under s. 3(4) / s. 10(1) of the Fatal Accidents Act
Each child generates its own set of amounts (one for loss of companionship and one for grief) to be assessed separately and then apportioned between the parents
The age of the deceased child is relevant to the companionship quantum: a younger child with more years of expected companionship remaining attracts a higher companionship award
Apportionment between parents under s. 3(5) / s. 10(2) is equal in the normal case; unequal apportionment requires affirmative evidence of meaningfully different loss
Non-pecuniary awards are assessed against a conventional Canadian standard, with modesty and predictability preferred over highly individualized subjective assessments
Section 10 of the Fatal Accidents Act applies to parents of a deceased child under 19 (or a dependent child over 19); siblings cannot claim under this provision

Join the conversation Cancel reply

Back to Case Law