Finch J.A. held this to be an error, saying at para. 29: 29 In my respectful view, a consideration of this issue should not have been limited to the test established in Steenblok v. Funk (supra). The plaintiff's claim in this case, properly considered, is that he has a permanent injury, and permanent pain, which limit him in his capacity to perform certain activities and which, therefore, impair his income earning capacity. The loss of capacity has been suffered even though he is still employed by his pre-accident employer, and may continue to be so employed indefinitely.
"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.