Punitive damages

Appeal from dismissal of breach of contract claim for attendant care services.

The appellant alleged an oral agreement modifying a fixed-rate compensation arrangement, claiming a balance owing of over $576,000.

The trial judge found no documentary evidence of the oral agreement, ruled certain evidence inadmissible, and found invoices and timesheets to be exaggerated or fabricated.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's analysis or conclusions and dismissed the appeal.

A professional comedian appealed a discrimination finding after a human rights tribunal held that his comedy routines mocking a public figure with a disability violated the right to the safeguard of dignity under the Quebec Charter.

The majority of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the three elements of a discrimination claim under s. 10 of the Quebec Charter had not been established.

The majority found that the distinction was not based on a prohibited ground since the comedian had not targeted the complainant because of his disability but because he was a public figure.

Even if based on a prohibited ground, the majority held that the comedian's comments did not incite others to vilify the complainant or to detest his humanity, nor were they likely to lead to discriminatory treatment.

Four dissenting justices would have dismissed the appeal, finding that the comments constituted a discriminatory interference with the complainant's right to dignity as a child with a disability whose harm was broadly disseminated and deeply harmful.

The appellants, financial services entities within the Desjardins Group, appealed the Quebec Court of Appeal's decision authorizing a class action brought by an investor in capital-guaranteed term savings products that ultimately yielded no return at maturity.

The majority held that the Superior Court erred in analyzing the conditions for authorization under article 1003 of the former Code of Civil Procedure, and affirmed the Court of Appeal's authorization of the class action against both the financial services firm (on a theory of systematic breach of the duty to inform) and the asset management company (on a theory of extracontractual breach of duties of competence and management).

The majority further specified that any punitive damages claim in relation to asset-backed commercial paper must be limited to Unaffected Claims as defined in the Third Amended Plan of Compromise and Arrangement sanctioned under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

Three justices dissented in part, concluding that authorization against the financial services firm should be denied for failure to establish common questions, while agreeing that the action against the asset management company should be authorized solely with respect to compensatory damages.

The appellants sought leave to appeal a Quebec Court of Appeal decision that denied leave to appeal a Superior Court authorization of a class action against automobile manufacturers for punitive damages arising from non-compliance with environmental standards.

The Superior Court had authorized the class action with respect to punitive damages only, declining to authorize the compensatory damages claim.

A majority of the Supreme Court found the Court of Appeal judge did not err in exercising her discretion to deny leave.

The minority would have granted leave on the basis that a question of law warranting appellate review had been raised, and would have remanded the matter to the Court of Appeal for a decision on the merits.

Hampton Securities Limited appealed a trial judgment in which the trial judge found that the employee, Christina Nicole Dean, was not indebted to Hampton for trading losses, was constructively dismissed, and was entitled to six months' notice in lieu of salary.

The trial judge also awarded damages for defamation and punitive damages, along with costs on a full indemnity basis.

The Court of Appeal upheld all findings, rejecting Hampton's arguments regarding the employment contract interpretation, constructive dismissal, the enforceability of the termination clause, the qualified privilege defence to defamation, and the appropriateness of punitive damages and costs awards.

This appeal concerns the assessment of damages for sexual assault in a civil action.

The respondent, a physician, alleged that the appellant, a colleague and friend, sexually assaulted her at her home in 1999.

The trial judge found the assault proven and awarded general damages of $175,000, punitive damages of $25,000, pre-judgment interest, and costs.

The appellant appealed, challenging the non-pecuniary damages award and the punitive damages award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's assessment of damages or her decision to award punitive damages.

Minority shareholders appealed a trial judgment finding oppressive conduct by majority shareholders in a real estate development company.

The trial judge found that the majority had issued too many shares in response to cash calls when the minority shareholder refused to participate, thereby diluting the minority's ownership interest.

The appellate court upheld the trial judge's interpretation of the shareholders' agreement and the calculation of share dilution, with minor adjustments to the valuation calculations.

The court also set aside punitive damages against one defendant due to inadequate notice in the pleadings, and dismissed the appellants' costs appeal.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed class proceeding alleging that large‑head metal‑on‑metal hip implants designed and distributed by the defendants were defective and caused injury.

The defendants contested certification primarily on the basis that the proposed common issues lacked sufficient commonality and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The court applied the “some basis in fact” standard under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and held that the plaintiff had adduced sufficient evidence of product defect and class‑wide commonality to support most proposed common issues.

The court found that negligence, duty of care, breach of standard of care, medical monitoring costs, and punitive damages issues could proceed on a class‑wide basis, subject to certain amendments.

The action was certified as a class proceeding with most proposed common issues approved.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of portions of the plaintiff’s claim relating to non-earner accident benefits, breach of contract, and extra-contractual claims including mental distress, bad faith, and punitive damages.

The insurer argued that the plaintiff had not submitted a valid application for non-earner benefits because disability certificates did not confirm that the statutory disability test was met.

The court rejected this argument as an overly literal interpretation of the application requirements, finding that the meaning of the physician’s responses and the effect of mediation could not be resolved on the motion and required a trial.

However, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the extra-contractual claims, finding no evidence of malfeasance or bad faith in the insurer’s claims handling.

The motion therefore succeeded in part.

The plaintiff brought an action arising from a land banking investment scheme that resulted in losses exceeding $250,000.

The defendants had been noted in default, and the matter proceeded as an undefended trial to determine liability and damages.

The court held that the pleaded facts established fraudulent misrepresentation, as the defendants knowingly promoted investments in land unlikely to receive development approval while promising substantial returns.

Judgment was granted jointly and severally against two individual defendants for the full value of the investments, and punitive damages were awarded against one defendant due to egregious conduct exploiting the plaintiff’s vulnerability and disability.

Claims for aggravated damages were dismissed for lack of evidence that psychological benefits were within the parties’ contemplation.

Following a motion concerning the enforceability of an employment agreement, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff succeeded on the principal issue of enforceability, while the defendant succeeded on inducement and the dismissal of punitive damages.

The court considered the divided success, the principle of indemnity, and the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Although the plaintiff sought $16,505 in partial indemnity costs, the court found the amount somewhat high and adjusted the award to reflect the mixed success of the parties.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

On a statutory appeal from a specialized human rights tribunal, the Court held that judicial review standards apply, with correctness for the scope of state religious neutrality and reasonableness for most discrimination and evidentiary determinations.

The municipal council prayer, viewed in context, was found to be a religious practice by a public authority that breached the state’s duty of neutrality.

The practice created discriminatory interference with freedom of conscience and religion that was more than trivial or insubstantial.

The by-law attempting to regulate the prayer could be declared inoperative in relation to the complainant, and the remedial orders and damages were largely upheld subject to limits on the tribunal’s power to issue a general invalidity declaration.

The appeal was allowed.

The plaintiff brought a civil action following the breakdown of a romantic relationship, alleging repayment of loans, conversion of personal property, unjust enrichment, and intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The defendant did not defend the action and was noted in default.

The court held that funds advanced during the relationship were loans rather than gifts and ordered repayment.

It further found the defendant liable for conversion of the plaintiff’s truck and unjust enrichment arising from home renovations paid by the plaintiff.

Although the claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering was rejected in law in the family relationship context, the court awarded punitive damages for the defendant’s exploitative and reprehensible conduct.

The plaintiff sought a declaration that two life insurance policies had a cash surrender value exceeding $18 million and claimed damages for breach of contract and bad faith refusal to pay.

The insurer denied liability and counterclaimed, alleging the plaintiff participated in a fraudulent scheme with a senior company actuary to inflate policy values and withdraw funds far exceeding deposits.

After reviewing extensive accounting evidence and testimony, the court found the plaintiff’s evidence unreliable and accepted that the actuary had falsified documents and inflated values in exchange for bribes from the plaintiff.

The court concluded the plaintiff knowingly assisted a breach of fiduciary duty and committed civil fraud.

The policies were declared overdrawn and terminated, and the insurer was awarded damages equal to the misappropriated funds plus punitive damages.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed class proceeding against a financial institution relating to losses arising from a fraudulent investment scheme involving a tooth whitening promotion.

Earlier reasons had found that the criteria under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied except for the requirement that the representative plaintiff adequately represent the class.

The court had concerns regarding the plaintiff’s health following a stroke and his ability to perform the role.

After further medical evidence was filed, including expert neurological evidence confirming no cognitive impairment, the court accepted that the plaintiff could adequately represent the class and that the litigation plan addressed communication with class members and management of damages.

The court concluded that the statutory criteria were met and certified the proceeding as a class action.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed class action arising from an alleged investment fraud involving monies deposited into bank accounts held at the defendant bank.

Earlier reasons had found the certification criteria satisfied except for the adequacy of the litigation plan under s. 5(1)(e)(ii) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

After filing a revised litigation plan addressing communication with class members, management of damages, and procedural issues including a jury notice, the court determined the deficiencies had been remedied.

The court approved revised common issues and concluded the statutory requirements for certification were met.

The proceeding was certified as a class action and a representative plaintiff was appointed.

The plaintiffs sought damages following a violent assault that occurred outside a bar where the primary plaintiff was attacked by three individuals and sustained significant physical and psychological injuries.

Evidence established ongoing medical complications including concussion symptoms, psychological trauma, and employment loss.

Family members advanced claims under s. 61 of the Family Law Act for loss of care, guidance, and companionship arising from the injuries.

Following an assessment hearing on damages, the court awarded general and punitive damages to the injured plaintiff and derivative damages to family members.

Costs were also awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff alleged misuse of a joint bank account by his spouse and conversion of a workplace insurance care payment issued in his name.

The court rejected the claim relating to the spouses’ joint bank account, finding the account was managed consistently with the parties’ longstanding intention that the spouse handle household finances.

However, the court found that the spouse and her parents wrongfully converted a WSIB cheque issued to the plaintiff by concealing the payment and depositing it into an account in the mother’s name.

The defendants’ claim that the funds represented compensation for caregiving services failed due to lack of contractual consideration and the equitable doctrine of clean hands.

Judgment was granted for the amount of the cheque plus modest punitive damages.

The plaintiff lender brought a motion for summary judgment to recover loan funds advanced to a corporation controlled by the individual defendant.

The individual defendant admitted in criminal proceedings that he misused the loan funds and arranged the murder of the lender’s principal when he could not repay the debt.

The court found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and granted judgment for the outstanding loan amount.

The court pierced the corporate veil, finding the corporation and the individual defendant were interchangeable for purposes of the loan and that the corporation functioned as a façade for improper conduct.

Punitive damages were refused because the action was grounded in breach of contract and no independent actionable wrong associated with the breach justified such damages.

Consumer-protection appeal concerning misleading sweepstakes advertising and civil remedies under Quebec's Consumer Protection Act.

The Court held the proper benchmark for general impression is the credulous and inexperienced average consumer, not a skeptical or especially curious consumer.

The mailing was found misleading and to omit material information, establishing prohibited practices under ss. 219 and 228 and engaging civil recourses under s. 272 where a sufficient nexus to the consumer contract was proven.

Compensatory damages of $1,000 were upheld, punitive damages were justified but reduced to $15,000, and the appeal was allowed in part.