Is there any new legal principle or change in the law regarding the onus of proof concerning possible future events?

In Sales v. Clarke, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2334 at para. 14-16 (Q.L.) (C.A.) Finch J.A. (as he then was) made the following comments: I respectfully agree with the learned trial judge in this case that Athey does not represent the statement of any new legal principle or change in the law. It was simply the application of well-established legal principles as set out by Mr. Justice Major under the heading "General Principles" at 466-468. I see nothing in Athey to support the plaintiff’s argument that the onus of proof concerning possible future events is applicable to past events. The issue which the plaintiff would characterize as a "past hypothetical fact" in this case is nothing more than the question of whether a causal relationship has been established between two past events; namely, injury sustained in an accident and diminished or lost income suffered by the plaintiff after the accident occurred. The question traditionally posed by tort lawyers in such circumstances would be: But for the accident and injury, what income would the plaintiff have earned? That question does not raise any hypothetical question of fact. It asks simply whether there is a causal link between two past events. Well-settled law requires proof of causation for a past loss on a balance of probabilities. In the case at bar the court is primarily concerned with proof of past losses, given the historical nature of these claims.