What is the test for providing homemaking assistance and yard work assistance in a personal injury action?

I intend to deal with the issue of homemaking assistance and yard work assistance separately. With respect to the balance of the services and goods sought, I must consider each and determine whether it properly forms part of a claim that may be advanced by the plaintiff against the defendant. As it was said more than two decades ago in Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd. (1978), 1978 CanLII 1 (SCC), 83 D.L.R. (3d) 452 (S.C.C.) at 462: 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. … There is a duty to be reasonable. There cannot be “complete” or “perfect” compensation. An award must be moderate, and fair to both parties.