When there is little or no objective evidence of continuing injury in the context of a claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, does the claimant have to prove that there is a continuing injury?

The onus in these situations rests with the claimant to prove that all the evidence is consistent with a continuing injury. As McEachern C.J.S.C. (as he then was) said in Price v. Kostryba, supra at para. 6: I am not stating any new principle when I say that the court should be exceedingly careful when there is little or no objective evidence of continuing injury and when the complaints of pain persist for long periods extending beyond the normal or usual recovery. Any injured person is entitled to be fully and properly compensated for any injury or disability caused by a wrongdoer. But no one can expect his fellow citizen or citizens to compensate him in absence of convincing evidence - which may be just his own evidence if the surrounding circumstances are consistent - that his complaints of pain are true reflections of a continuing injury.