Or, "what's wrong with the facts of this case, not the result".
In this case, the sardonicism will be a bit wryer. Or a bit more ferocious.
As I told a friend, I've decided to adopt his "it is permissible to care (much) less" attitude starting on January 1, 2017. That doesn't mean I'll always live up to the letter of that attitude.
The substance of this note was written late last year. I decided to wait until this year to finish it.
Sometimes one has to guess at why cases reached trial or appeal in the form they did. Iannetti v Poulain, 2016 NSCA 93 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gwk5m> is an example of one of those cases, for me. Iannetti v Poulain contains a wonderfully understated analysis by the the appellate judge who wrote for the unanimous majority.
Assume and consider:
 Although there are additional facts in Langille with respect to how Ms. Langille came to be paid Section B benefits, it is apparent that the insurer was entitled to change its positon on her initial eligibility. In this case, there is no evidence from the Section B insurer or anyone, for that matter, as to the information provided to them by Mr. Poulain when he was paid Section B benefits. Nor is there any explanation as to why CGU paid him Section B benefits in the first place, or whether it would have continued benefits if it became aware he did not meet the statutory preconditions. The initial eligibility for Section B benefits was a live issue at trial. It was incumbent upon Mr. Poulain to lead evidence on that issue and to make submissions with respect to it. He failed to do so.
 Once again this goes to the heart of the causation issue. If Mr. Poulain was never eligible for Section B benefits, how could he have suffered any loss as a result of the negligent advice given by Mr. Iannetti? He would not have any claim against the Section B insurer, nor could he have been prejudiced in his negotiations with the Section A insurer. [As noted earlier, the trial judge found that Mr. Poulain suffered nominal damages. I would not interfere with that award as it has not been appealed.]
 I would also allow this ground of appeal.