The plaintiff’s submissions were prefaced by reference to Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., 1978 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229 at page 241: In theory a claim for the cost of future care is a pecuniary claim for the amount which may reasonably be expected to be expended in putting the injured party in the position he would have been in if he had not sustained the injury. Obviously, a plaintiff who has been gravely and permanently impaired can never be put in the position he would have been in if the tort had not been committed. To this extent, restitutio in integrum is not possible. Money is a barren substitute for health and personal happiness, but to the exent [sic] within reason that money can be used to sustain or improve the mental or physical health of the injured person it may properly form part of a claim.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.