British Columbia: What is Reasonable in the Context of the Mitigation Argument?

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that once a plaintiff has established damages, the onus shifts to the defendant to establish any culpable failure to mitigate. The defendant must establish on a balance of probabilities that:

1. the plaintiff acted unreasonably in abstaining from recommended treatments; and
2. the extent (if any) to which the plaintiff's damages would have been reduced had they acted reasonably.^[1]

However, almost every law student, lawyer, professor and (even) judge struggle with the question of what is a reasonable person? Personal characteristics, unique circumstances and other factors tend to muddy the waters of reasonableness. However, two recent decisions coming out of British Columbia have arguably gone too far and seemingly made it near impossible to argue mitigation in the context of personal injury.