Punitive damages

The plaintiff, Ryan Grealy, brought an action for damages for breach of contract after his employment with XL Tool Inc. was terminated without cause.

Grealy had left a long-term position at Diematic Tooling Solutions Inc. to join the defendant, initially on a part-time basis and then full-time.

Upon termination, he was paid one week’s severance as required by the Employment Standards Act, but claimed this was inadequate.

The court considered whether Grealy was induced to leave secure employment, the appropriate notice period, and whether punitive damages were warranted.

The court found no inducement, set a reasonable notice period of 12 weeks, and awarded damages accordingly, but denied punitive damages.

The court held that Richard Turcotte was constructively dismissed by Grenville Management Inc. when he was unilaterally laid off during the COVID-19 pandemic, as the employment agreement did not permit such a layoff without his consent.

The court rejected the employer’s argument that pandemic-related regulations suspended the right to claim constructive dismissal at common law.

Turcotte was awarded 16 months’ pay in lieu of notice, with no punitive or moral damages, as the employer’s conduct, while problematic, did not meet the threshold for such awards.

The Township of Greater Madawaska brought a motion to bifurcate the trial, seeking to separate the determination of an easement from the remaining issues, or alternatively, to separate liability from damages.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that bifurcation would not save time or costs, would prejudice the property owners, and that the issues were not clearly severable, particularly regarding punitive damages.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the property owners.

The applicant, Hoshang Bakhshi, sought relief under the oppression provisions of the Business Corporations Act, RSO 1990, c B.16, alleging oppressive conduct by the respondents.

The court found that the respondents failed to comply with a prior order to produce records and respond in a timely manner.

The court granted the application, awarding Bakhshi the return of his investment, a share of sale proceeds, punitive damages, and substantial indemnity costs, finding the respondents' conduct to be covert and in bad faith.

The court determined the appropriate prejudgment and post-judgment interest rates following an award of damages and punitive damages to the plaintiff for the improper registration of a certificate of pending litigation.

The court found that prejudgment interest should run from the date the certificate was registered, calculated at an average rate reflecting market changes, and that post-judgment interest applies to all amounts owing under the order, including costs.

The decision grants summary judgment to the plaintiffs, who were defrauded of $2.65 million in a real estate investment scheme involving a solicitor’s law firm, his office manager/mother, and an in-house mortgage broker.

The court finds the solicitor and his firm liable for breach of trust, negligence, and fiduciary duty, and holds the property company and its principals jointly and severally liable.

The court awards compensatory and punitive damages, as well as substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs moved for default judgment after the defendant, Maria Surovova, was noted in default for failing to attend examinations for discovery.

The court found that Surovova had fraudulently misrepresented herself as a mortgage broker, induced the plaintiffs to transfer $85,221.00 to her under false pretenses, and retained the funds.

The court granted default judgment, awarded punitive damages, and ordered that the judgment survive bankruptcy under s. 178(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Full indemnity costs and prejudgment interest were also awarded.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to compel a non-party (American Express) to produce a credit card statement and for punitive damages against the defendant for alleged misconduct.

This motion followed a previous unsuccessful attempt by the plaintiff to obtain the same document directly from the defendant, which was dismissed by another Associate Justice who also ordered that further discovery-related motions required leave.

The court dismissed the current motion, finding that leave was required and had already been effectively denied, applying principles of issue estoppel and abuse of process.

The court also found no evidence to support the plaintiff's claim for punitive damages.

The plaintiff, Leanne Aubin, brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant, James Bowie, her former criminal defence lawyer.

The plaintiff sought damages for breach of fiduciary duty, breaches of the Human Rights Code (sexual harassment), and defamation, as well as punitive damages.

The defendant was noted in default.

The court found the defendant liable for a staggering breach of fiduciary duty due to his repeated sexual propositions, sending an intimate photograph, and suggesting alcohol/drugs/sex when the plaintiff was in distress.

The court also found the defendant liable for sexual harassment under the Human Rights Code and for defamation through a social media chat where he disclosed confidential information and made false allegations.

The court awarded $75,000 for breach of fiduciary duty, $65,000 under the Human Rights Code, $30,000 for defamation, and $25,000 in punitive damages, totaling $195,000, plus $40,000 in costs.

The Lakehead District School Board (the Board) brought a motion for summary judgment against Anna Mauro, operating as 807 ISC Thunder Bay, alleging copyright and moral rights infringement.

The Board claimed Mauro produced and sold clothing featuring names, mascots, logos, and colour schemes of its schools without authorization.

Mauro argued the works were not registered, not original, and her designs were sufficiently different.

The court found that copyright subsisted with the Board, was infringed by Mauro, and granted declarations, a permanent injunction, delivery up of infringing works, and damages representing disgorgement of profits.

The Board's claim for punitive damages was dismissed.

The defendants, Guangcheng Zhu and Guru Constrarchit Ltd., brought a motion to set aside a default judgment.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside default judgments, finding that while the motion was brought promptly and there was an arguable defense for conversion, breach of trust, and punitive damages, the defendants failed to provide a plausible explanation for their default, having made a conscious decision not to participate in the proceedings until their bank accounts were frozen.

The court partially granted the motion, setting aside only the portion of the default judgment related to conversion, breach of trust, and punitive damages ($99,628.58), while upholding the remainder of the judgment, including damages for breach of contract and costs.

The plaintiffs purchased a home from the defendants and subsequently discovered several deficiencies, including a missing retaining wall for a newly built shop driveway and significant water leakage in the basement.

The plaintiffs sought damages for these deficiencies and punitive damages.

The court found the defendants liable for the costs of constructing the retaining wall, applying the doctrine of rectification or contract interpretation, and for the basement water damage under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

Other claims for deficiencies and punitive damages were dismissed.

The plaintiff sued his neighbours for nuisance and the tort in Rylands v. Fletcher due to water and debris migration from their property onto his.

The defendants had built their property in deliberate disregard of city-approved plans, leading to improper roof slope, downpipe placement, grading, and retaining wall construction.

The court found the defendants liable for nuisance, awarding the plaintiff compensatory damages for property repairs and general damages for loss of enjoyment.

A mandatory injunction was issued requiring the defendants to undertake specific remedial construction to abate the nuisance.

Punitive damages were denied as disproportionate given the injunctive relief.

The applicant sought declarations that her property had no right-of-way or easement for the respondent's use of a driveway and water well, and an order prohibiting such use.

The respondent filed cross-applications claiming a right-of-way or ownership of the disputed land.

The court found that the driveway and water well were entirely on the applicant's property, and no express, prescriptive, or implied easements existed in favour of the respondent's property due to unity of ownership by a predecessor in title and lack of strict necessity.

The court dismissed the respondent's cross-applications and granted the applicant's application, subject to a six-month suspension of enforcement to allow the respondent to establish alternative access and water.

This is an appeal in a class action concerning an infectious disease outbreak at a pain care centre.

The appellant, Dr. Stephen James, challenged the trial judge's findings of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and the application of the limitation period, as well as the award of punitive damages and costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's conclusions that Dr. James breached the standard of care by failing to consistently use aseptic technique and to report/investigate infections.

The court affirmed the use of statistical evidence to establish a rebuttable presumption of causation for the class, and found no error in the breach of fiduciary duty or the appropriateness of punitive damages.

The appeal on costs, including the order for Dr. James to pay the successful co-defendant nurses' costs, was also dismissed.

The appellant, a landlord, appealed a trial judgment that found it liable for conversion of chattels belonging to its former tenant's chattel mortgagee (the respondent).

The trial judge awarded compensatory damages based on the chattels' market value and punitive damages.

The appellant argued the compensatory damages should have been limited to the outstanding chattel mortgage balance, claiming an ownership interest in the abandoned chattels, and that punitive damages were unwarranted or excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's ownership argument was a new theory not raised at trial and was contradicted by evidence.

The court affirmed that market value was the appropriate measure of damages for conversion and upheld the punitive damages award as a rational response to the appellant's high-handed conduct.

The applicant, Stoja Sekulovski, sought dependant's support from the estate of her late husband, Jim Sekulovski, under the Succession Law Reform Act.

She also sought an order for her step-son, Michael Sekulovski, to return funds he received from Jim's mother's estate, asserting it was an invalid gift, and to discharge Personal Property Security Act (PPSA) registrations he made against the estate and Stoja, along with statutory and punitive damages.

The court found the purported gift to Michael invalid, granted Stoja dependant's support including vesting the matrimonial home in her, and ordered Michael to discharge the PPSA registrations, pay the statutory amount, and punitive damages for his vexatious conduct.

The appellant, Simplicity Air Ltd., appealed a jury award of punitive damages to the respondent, Daniel Eynon, for workplace injuries.

The jury had awarded general damages and lost wages, reduced by 75% for contributory negligence, and $150,000 in punitive damages.

The appeal addressed whether punitive damages were properly left to the jury, errors in instructions, employer liability for employee conduct, and the quantum of the award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's instructions were adequate, the employer was liable for supervisory misconduct, and the punitive damages award was not irrational or inordinately large, especially given the employer's instruction to falsely report the accident.

The Plaintiff brought a motion to strike portions of the Defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, arguing they disclosed no reasonable cause of action (Rule 21.01(1)(b)) or were scandalous, frivolous, and/or vexatious (Rule 25.11(b)).

The Defendant sought leave to amend its pleading to incorporate an abuse of process claim.

The court found that the Defendant failed to properly plead the essential elements of the tort of abuse of process, specifically lacking special damages.

As a result, the Plaintiff's motion to strike certain paragraphs, including a claim for punitive damages based on abuse of process, was granted, and the Defendant's proposed amendments related to the abuse of process claim were denied.

The Plaintiff was deemed the successful party on the motions and entitled to costs.

This appeal concerned a massive fraud perpetrated against a Paraguayan pension fund (Cajubi) by the appellants.

The trial judge found the appellants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty, awarding over $20 million in damages and punitive damages.

On appeal, the appellants raised numerous grounds, including the corporate identification doctrine, limitation periods, unpleaded conspiracy, lack of reliance, and apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds, affirming the trial judge's findings, particularly regarding the inapplicability of corporate attribution where it would undermine the integrity of the legal system and allow fraudsters to benefit.