What is the range of damages for a plaintiff in a catastrophic case?

On non-pecuniary damages, the judge rejected the plaintiffs' argument that, unlike the claimants in many catastrophic cases, the infant plaintiff is aware of his severe limitations and reduced life expectancy, and therefore his level of suffering exceeds that contemplated in the trilogy, which established the rough upper limit. The judge held that since the judgment in Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., 1978 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229 at 264, expressly included consideration of the plaintiff's suffering in the contemplation of his loss, the present case could not be said to be exceptional. Fresh Evidence Motion