Daniel J. Fife

The appellant appealed a jury verdict finding it liable for injuries sustained by the respondent child.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the jury's verdict was reasonable as the appellant's failure to train staff in child supervision provided a basis for finding a breach of the duty of care.

The court also found no ambiguity in the jury's answers regarding causation when given a full and liberal reading.

The respondent, a bricklayer, was totally disabled following two falls.

The appellant insurer paid disability benefits for a short period before terminating them based on surveillance evidence, despite medical opinions supporting total disability.

The trial judge found the insurer breached its duty of good faith and awarded contractual damages, $200,000 in punitive damages, and $100,000 in mental distress damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the punitive damages award, finding the insurer's conduct was high-handed and adversarial.

However, the Court reduced the mental distress damages to $25,000, finding the trial judge's award was inordinately high and disproportionate.