Is impecuniosity a valid reason for a plaintiff not to pursue recommended treatment?

The next issue is whether it was reasonable for him not to. That turns on his evidence that he could not afford it. I accept that impecuniosity can be a legally sufficient reason for failing to pursue recommended treatment (see generally Spurgeon v. Smith, 2009 BCSC 1526, at paras. 64-70). The defendant has the onus of proving that it was unreasonable for the plaintiff not to pursue treatment. Although impecuniosity is capable of justifying a failure to take treatment, it is not reasonable for a plaintiff who cannot afford treatment to take no steps to try to obtain funding. If a request is made to the defendant to fund a rehabilitation program and the request is denied or ignored, then the onus will generally be discharged. On the other hand, if the defendant is otherwise unaware that a lack of funds is precluding reasonable treatment, it is reasonable to expect the plaintiff to make that circumstance known to the defendant. For a plaintiff to simply do nothing and then assert impecuniosity is not reasonable in my view.