What is the current state of the law on strict compliance with Part VII benefits?

In Lynn, strict compliance was necessary because the deduction of Part VII benefits, being mandatory, did not require the kind of assessment that must be done in determining the cost of future care. Strict compliance is not required where a trial judge is considering whether to apply a contingency in relation to the future availability of publicly funded health care. The standard of proof for future hypothetical events is simple probability: Athey v. Leonati, 1996 CanLII 183 (SCC), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458 at 470‒71.