The trial judge recognized that the case has some interesting similarities to the facts of Conklin v. Smith, 1978 CanLII 181 (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1107, 6 B.C.L.R. 362, 5 C.C.L.T. 113, 88 D.L.R. (3d) 317, 22 N.R. 140, and he analyzed that case at great length. He compared the facts as he found them in this case to the facts in Conklin v. Smith. He stated his conclusions in these words: In my view there was no reasonable probability that the plaintiff would have become a commercial pilot, let alone hold a helicopter endorsement. It would be much too speculative to base a claim for loss of future opportunity on the circumstances present here.
"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.