It is clear from the jurisprudence that the task of the court is to determine whether the hypothetical events have evidentiary support that rises above “mere speculation”. It is also clear that plaintiffs who earn as much or more post-accident are not precluded from advancing an evidentiary basis of a real and substantial possibility of future income loss. One example is where a plaintiff has not missed work, but the evidence demonstrates a real and substantial possibility that the plaintiff’s chronic pain will affect her ability to work in the future: Clark v. Kouba, 2014 BCCA 50 at paras. 32–36.
"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.