The short answer is yes. This issue was dealt with in this recent Supreme Court of British Columbia case:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/12/2018BCSC1200.htm
Here, a young woman and mother to 3 young children was injured in 2 separate motor vehicle accidents. The plaintiff intended to stay out of the workforce until her youngest child had entered school, which was approximately 5 years from the date of trial. The judge stated:
"[187] Ms. Barna takes care of her three children with the assistance of her husband. Child minding is hard work and it is clear that Ms. Barna does it to the greatest extent of her abilities because her family needs her. She endures significant pain, and she does as much as she can because of her commitment to her family."
The judge found that the plaintiff was likely to suffer a permanent reduction in her capacity to work due to chronic pain and was likely to be limited to a 3 hour work week upon her return to work. The judge decided this was equivalent to a 40% reduction in work capacity and awarded the plaintiff an amount equivalent to 40% of earnings calculated from the plaintiff's intended return to work to retirement at age 65. The judge speculated that the plaintiff would have earnings of approximately $35,000/year and awarded her $340,000 for "Future Loss of Earning Capacity". The plaintiff was awarded a further $125,000 to compensate them for "Future Cost of Care", which included assistance with "homemaking services", including grocery delivery and gardening.
This case illustrates how the courts will apply legal principles to cases of speculative earnings to ensure that plaintiff's are fairly compensated for their losses. It also illustrates how the law is shifting to further acknowledge the value of stay at home parents.