In 1978, the Supreme Court of Canada imposed a cap on non-pecuniary damages — pain, suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life — in three companion decisions collectively known as the Andrews trilogy. The original cap was C$100,000 (1978 dollars). It is indexed to CPI inflation and currently sits in the C$400,000–$420,000 range for the most catastrophic injuries. Economic damages — future care costs, lost income — remain uncapped.
The Andrews cap limits non-pecuniary damages (pain and suffering) to approximately C$400K–$420K in 2026 dollars for the most severe injuries. Economic damages are uncapped. The cap has been in place since 1978 and has never been overruled.
The three decisions
| Case | Citation | Injury | Non-pecuniary award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd. | [1978] 2 SCR 229 | Quadriplegia | C$100,000 |
| Thornton v School District No. 57 | [1978] 2 SCR 267 | Quadriplegia | C$100,000 |
| Arnold v Teno | [1978] 2 SCR 287 | Severe brain injury (child) | C$100,000 |
The Court's rationale
The Supreme Court reasoned that non-pecuniary damages are inherently arbitrary — there is no objective way to convert pain and suffering into dollars. Rather than allow unconstrained awards to escalate (as was happening in the US), the Court set a ceiling that it considered the “upper limit of reasonable compensation” for the most severe injuries. The cap applies to catastrophic cases; lesser injuries receive proportionally less within the ceiling.
The Lindal CPI mechanism
In Lindal v Lindal [1981] 2 SCR 629, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Andrews cap must be adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This means the cap increases annually in nominal terms to maintain its real value in 1978 dollars. The adjustment is applied at the date of trial or settlement.
Current cap values
| Year | Approximate cap (CPI-adjusted) |
|---|---|
| 1978 (original) | C$100,000 |
| 2000 | ~C$280,000 |
| 2010 | ~C$340,000 |
| 2020 | ~C$385,000 |
| 2024 | ~C$405,000 |
| 2026 (estimated) | ~C$415,000–$420,000 |
What the cap covers and does not cover
| Component | Capped? |
|---|---|
| Pain and suffering | Yes — subject to the Andrews cap |
| Loss of enjoyment of life | Yes — included in non-pecuniary |
| Loss of amenity | Yes |
| Future care costs | No — economic, uncapped |
| Lost income / earning capacity | No — economic, uncapped |
| Medical expenses | No — economic, uncapped |
| Cost of attendant care | No — economic, uncapped |
Criticism and ongoing debate
The Andrews cap has been criticised for under-compensating the most severely injured claimants. Critics argue that C$400,000 is inadequate to reflect a lifetime of pain following quadriplegia or severe brain injury. Defenders argue that the cap prevents the inflationary spiral seen in US non-economic awards and focuses resources on economic needs (care costs) rather than symbolic amounts.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Andrews cap?
What is the Andrews cap adjusted to in 2026?
Does the Andrews cap apply to all personal injury claims?
Can the Andrews cap be exceeded?
Sources
- Supreme Court of Canada — Andrews v Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd. [1978] 2 SCR 229
- Supreme Court of Canada — Lindal v Lindal [1981] 2 SCR 629
- Statistics Canada — Consumer Price Index historical data
- Canadian Bar Association — personal injury damages review