The jury was entitled to conclude that the respondent’s inability to work at gainful employment for the rest of his working life was a profound interference with his enjoyment of life and to award damages commensurately. This conclusion is consistent with the direction of Dickson J. in Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., supra, that variations from a conventional award should primarily reflect a solatium for what the individual has lost in the way of amenities and enjoyment of life.
"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.