What is the meaning of the word “injury to person” in the context of the Limitation Act?

Mr. Justice Rice also considered the interpretation of “injury to person” in Arndt v. Smith, 1997 CanLII 360 (SCC), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 539, which found that the claim for the costs of raising an infant with disabilities were an economic loss not related to the physical, emotional or mental injuries suffered by the infant. He thereby concluded at paragraph 25: Having considered these authorities, in my view, the pure economic loss suffered here was not in respect of injury to property or person. It was a separate loss and falls within the purview of s. 3(5) of the Limitation Act. Section 3(5) provides that any action not specifically provided for in the Limitation Act may not be brought after the expiration of six years after the date on which the right to do so arose. Appellant’s position on the appeal