Seems pretty clear courts across the country generally have little interest in interfering with the legislature's rights to limit or eliminate the right to restitutio in integrum.

What is clear is that the SCC isn't yet ready to take on, from first principles, the entire issue of when the Legislatures whether under the Charter or the common law, as now limited by the Charter, can cap, restrict, or even abolish personal injury awards. The least of the reasons, in my view, is that the SCC doesn't want to revisit the trilogy cap (or any other judicially imposed, common law,restriction on damages awards).

While it could, of course, preface its reasons with a statement to the effect that nothing it says about legislated caps or restrictions should be taken to say anything about validity of judicial restrictions, the reality is that that would be meaningless. First, there's Dolphin Delivery. Second, there's Dolphin … anyway, you get my point.

Third? Well, methinks the SCC, right now, isn't sufficiently interested in attempting to make entirely coherent(or even sufficiently coherent) if that were possible the Canadian common law on damages, or some other aspect of tort law, particulary if doing so would force it to deal with inconsistencies in its own jurisprudence and, perhaps, to concede in one way or another that it's not now practicable for the SCC to undertake a wholesale cleanup.

But, who knows. I'm just (an occasional) spiller of ink.