In Drodge v. Kozak, 2011 BCSC 1316, the court considered what was reasonably necessary to preserve a plaintiff’s health, and noted at para. 194: 194 … the court should examine whether on the evidence the plaintiff has used the items or services in the past and whether the plaintiff will likely use the items or services in the future: [citations omitted.]
"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.