What is the test for a plaintiff to prove that there is a real and substantial possibility of a future event leading to income loss?

Counsel for the defendants relied on the principles stated in Perren v. Lalari, and in particular on paragraph 32 which, stated in part: A plaintiff must always prove . . . that there is a real and substantial possibility of a future event leading to an income loss. If the plaintiff discharges that burden of proof, then depending upon the facts of the case, the plaintiff may prove the quantification of that loss of earnings capacity, either on an earnings approach . . . or a capital asset approach . . .

Plaintiff’s counsel relied on statements made by judges of this court in MacKenzie v. Rogalasky 2011 BCSC 54 (Ker J.) and Miller v. Lawlor 2012 BCSC 387 (MacKenzie J.) as support for his position.

I think that certain statements made by the trial judges in each of those two cases, if read in isolation, appear to support the submission of counsel for the plaintiff. However, when the reasons are read in context, it is my opinion that those judges also stated the correct test for entitlement, as established in Perren v. Lalari. That is the test that must be applied. If, in either of those cases, the trial judge at some point misstated the test for entitlement, it is my opinion that he or she effectively applied the correct test, in deciding that issue.