Judge Brown reviewed this in Tanious v. Empire Life. A plaintiff’s suitability for any occupation under a Policy was referred to in Plouffe v. Mutual Life Assurance Co. of Canada, 2001 BCSC 900 (B.C. S.C.), Slade J. analyzed what a reasonable occupation would be under the “any occupation” definitions of total disability:

The test for disability has been held to be a subjective one, related to the background and education of the disabled person in question: Labelle v. Great-West Life Assurance Co.[1986] 17 C.C.L.I. 173 (B.C.S.C.).

In Labelle, Proudfoot J. (now J.A.) construed an “any occupation” definition of total disability with these qualifying words:

Notwithstanding this all-embracing definition, this does not mean that the person is not entitled to the benefit if he is so sick that he can take on only trivial or inconsequential work, or work for which he is over- qualified, or work for which he is completely unsuited by background.

A person is considered not to be totally disabled from engaging in ‘any’ occupation if his condition would enable him to enter into an occupation reasonably comparable to their old occupation in status and reward, and reasonably suitable in work activity in light of their education, training and experience.

What can be considered a reasonable occupation under the ‘any occupation’ definition of total disability?