This appeal concerned a jury award for damages in a motor vehicle accident case, specifically challenging the trial judge's directions on causation and the admissibility of evidence.
The appellant argued that the trial judge misdirected the jury on the "but for" test for causation by using "material contribution" language and improperly excluded a Statistics Canada report and curtailed re-examination of an expert.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury, despite the "material contribution" language, would have properly understood the "but for" test.
The court also upheld the exclusion of the Statistics Canada report due to lack of authentication and reliance by the expert, and found no reversible error in the re-examination ruling.
Furthermore, the court affirmed that hypothetical past income loss is to be proven on a "real and substantial possibility" standard, not on a balance of probabilities.