The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits for 104 weeks.
The appellant insurer terminated the benefits, arguing the respondent did not meet the stricter test of suffering a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training or experience.
The trial judge found the respondent met the test because he lacked the financial resources to train for long-haul trucking, which was identified as a suitable alternative.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a job requiring no substantial upgrading or retraining is a suitable alternative, even if the insured lacks formal qualifications at the time of trial.
