What is the difference between punitive and aggravated damages?

Vorvis v. I.C.B.C. (1989), 1989 CanLII 93 (SCC), 1 S.C.R. 1085, 36 B.C.L.R. (2d) 273 distinguishes between punitive damages and aggravated damages. At pp. 284-5, Mr. Justice McIntyre, speaking for the majority, observed: Punitive damages, as the name would indicate, are designed to punish. In this, they constitute an exception to the general common law rule that damages are designed to compensate the injured, not to punish the wrongdoer. Aggravated damages will frequently cover conduct which could also be the subject of punitive damages, but the role of aggravated damages remains compensatory. ... Aggravated damages are awarded to compensate for aggravated damage. ... [T]hey take account of intangible injuries and by definition will generally augment damages assessed under the general rules relating to the assessment of damages. Aggravated damages are compensatory in nature and may only be awarded for that purpose. Punitive damages, on the other hand, are punitive in nature and may only be employed in circumstances where the conduct giving the cause for complaint is of such nature that it merits punishment.