What is the test for determining the cost of future care for a plaintiff?

An award for cost of future care is based on what is “reasonably necessary on the medical evidence to promote the mental and physical health of the plaintiff”: Gignac v. Rozylo, 2012 BCCA 351 at para. 30.

In Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., 1978 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229 at 462, Dickson C.J.C. said: In theory a claim for the cost of future care is a pecuniary claim for the amount which may reasonably be expected to be expended in putting the injured party in the position he would have been in if he had not sustained the injury. Obviously, a plaintiff who has been gravely and permanently impaired can never be put in the position he would have been in if the tort had not been committed. To this extent, restitutio in integrum is not possible. Money is a barren substitute for health and personal happiness, but to the extent, within reason, that money can be used to sustain or improve the mental or physical health of the injured person it may properly form part of a claim.