What is the range of general damages for a plaintiff's emotional state?

In the present case, the non-tort incidents which have contributed to the plaintiff's emotional condition are known,. but it is not possible rationally to disentangle their impact on either the plaintiff's past or her future from the effects which might have followed from the accident alone. Both sets of "causes", each to a signi ficant degree, have in combination pro duced a badly damaged personality. Ac cordingly, I am compelled to resort to the approach taken in Haines v. Hellis- simo (1978), 18 O.R.(2d) 177, where, in the light of the past behavior of the deceased, Griffiths, J., reduced general damages to one-half on the basis of a reconstructed future. In the present case, given the "decom- pensating" result of the defendant's tort, I consider that a general reduc tion of one-third of the amounts other wise payable by the defendant is fair recognition of the impact of subse quent events for which he is not an swerable.