What is the test for success in a personal injury action brought by a farmer who claims to have lost his right to land on his land?

Even if I have misconceived the facts I think the action must fail because Bartrop failed entirely in his duty to mitigate his damages. He neither insisted on his rights nor sought alternative land to farm. The following passage from the judgment of Brown, J., in Howell v. Armour & Co. (1913), 1913 CanLII 187 (SK QB), 9 D.L.R. 125 at 127, seems apropos: “. . . I might point out that the plaintiff, in my judgment, was most extravagant in his estimate of the damages which he claims he incurred. He also seems to have been of the opinion that it was his privilege to sit with his arms folded, as it were, and incur all the damage possible. I am of opinion that the plaintiff was not justified in taking any such position. He was bound to act as a reasonable man, and do whatever he reasonably could to minimize his damages. There can be no recovery for damages which might have been prevented by reasonable efforts on his part.”