Punitive damages

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 moving party sought to strike an affidavit filed in support of an application for leave to appeal, arguing the affidavit was irrelevant and inadmissible under Rule 89 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court held the opinion evidence lacked proper foundation, consisted largely of sworn argument on ultimate issues, and improperly attacked the correctness of the appellate decision below.

The Court reaffirmed that affidavit evidence will rarely be useful on leave applications unless it assists in establishing public importance through material not apparent from the record.

The motion was granted, the affidavit and related memorandum portions were struck without leave to amend, and costs were awarded to the moving party in any event of the cause.

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.

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.

This appeal addressed federal Crown civil liability for the Minister of Justice's handling of mercy applications after a wrongful conviction.

The Court held that the mercy power was a core policy function protected by qualified immunity, and liability required bad faith or serious recklessness rather than simple fault.

The appellant did not prove that ministers acted in bad faith or that any alleged review failures caused compensable loss.

The Court also rejected additional damages, punitive damages, and claimed extrajudicial fees tied to alleged abuse of process.

The defendant employer brought a motion to strike portions of a statement of claim alleging wrongful dismissal, mental distress, defamation, and punitive damages.

The court held that the pleading failed to comply with Rules 25.06 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because it contained unsupported claims for damages and lacked material facts necessary to support allegations of mental distress, punitive damages, and defamation.

The court emphasized that pleadings must include concise statements of material facts rather than bare legal assertions.

Instead of striking only certain paragraphs or ordering particulars, the court struck the entire statement of claim with leave to file a fresh pleading within 14 days.

A shareholder and director brought a crossclaim alleging that another director diverted corporate revenues and misappropriated funds through his separate company.

The court found that the defendant breached his fiduciary duties under the Ontario Business Corporations Act by diverting customer revenues, withdrawing corporate funds for personal use, and engaging in oppressive conduct that harmed the corporation and its other shareholder.

The court held that the conduct constituted fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and oppression under the OBCA.

Damages were awarded to the corporation for diverted revenues and improper payments, and punitive damages were awarded to the shareholder.

The court also ordered the sale of the defendant’s shares to the other shareholder at fair market value as of the date of exclusion from the business.

The plaintiff employer brought a civil action against a former employee alleging conversion, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from systematic theft of store funds through manipulation of cash register void transactions.

The defendant had previously pleaded guilty to a criminal theft charge and paid partial restitution.

The court accepted the employer’s statistical analysis of business records showing excessive void transactions and found, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant misappropriated $70,699.93.

The court further held the defendant occupied a position of trust as a night manager and therefore acted in a fiduciary capacity.

Judgment was granted for damages and a declaration that the debt arose from fraud while acting in a fiduciary capacity under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and would survive bankruptcy; punitive damages were refused.

Following a successful motion striking a punitive damages claim in a proposed securities class proceeding, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $43,000.

The plaintiff argued that no costs should be awarded because the motion raised a novel point of law concerning the availability of punitive damages under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act.

The court accepted that the issue was legally novel and reasonably contested, noting that existing case law did not clearly resolve the question.

Exercising its discretion, the court held that fairness justified departing from the usual costs rule.

No order as to costs was made.

The applicant sought repayment of funds allegedly held in a foreign exchange trading account maintained with the respondent trading platform.

The respondent claimed the account had a negative balance due to improper trading practices and alleged retroactive losses arising from trades purportedly closed by a liquidity provider more than a month after the original transactions.

After reviewing account records, journal logs, and expert evidence, the court found the disputed trades were not the result of improper trading and that the alleged later closings did not occur.

The court concluded the respondent manipulated records to fabricate losses and retroactively adjust the account balance.

The applicant was awarded damages equal to the account balance shown in the earlier statement, an unpaid contractual bonus, and punitive damages.

The defendant employer brought a motion to strike portions of an amended statement of claim in a wrongful dismissal action under Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 25.11(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The impugned pleadings related to claims for aggravated damages ("Keays damages") and punitive damages based on alleged bad faith in the manner of dismissal and alleged reprisals for whistleblowing concerning marketing practices.

The court held that it was not plain and obvious that the allegations failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, emphasizing that damages for mental distress and punitive damages may arise from bad faith conduct in dismissal even where termination is without cause.

However, several paragraphs were struck for being unclear and unintelligible, with leave granted to replead them in plain language.

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 plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim in an action against their insurer arising from a residential fuel oil spill.

The proposed amendments sought to increase damages and add claims for breach of the insurer's duty of good faith together with punitive, aggravated, and exemplary damages.

The defendant argued that the amendments introduced a new cause of action barred by the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 and that it would suffer non‑compensable prejudice.

The court held that the amendments relied on the same material facts already pleaded and merely advanced an alternative legal claim and additional remedies.

As all relevant facts were pleaded before the limitation period expired and no prejudice was demonstrated, leave to amend was granted.

The plaintiff alleged constructive dismissal after refusing his employer’s request to issue a pay cheque without statutory source deductions.

The court found that the request violated statutory tax deduction obligations and that the plaintiff’s refusal led to constructive dismissal.

The employer was also found to have unlawfully withheld final wages and vacation pay, justifying punitive damages.

Claims of workplace religious harassment were dismissed due to insufficient evidence that the comments constituted vexatious or unwelcome conduct under the Human Rights Code.

A defendant’s claim for repayment of a $10,000 loan was allowed, with the court finding it to be an interest‑free loan repayable by instalments.

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.

A group of related corporate plaintiffs alleged that a planning consultant and licensed real estate salesperson breached fiduciary duties during a land acquisition initiative by secretly purchasing the target property through his own company.

The court found that the consultant acted as an agent and fiduciary for the plaintiffs, given the trust placed in him, his role negotiating with the seller, and his undertaking to act on their behalf.

By failing to disclose his personal interest, misleading the plaintiffs about negotiations, and purchasing the property himself, the defendant placed himself in a conflict of interest and breached his fiduciary obligations.

Although the plaintiffs suffered no pecuniary loss and failed to establish negligence in the planning advice, the court held that the egregious and deceptive conduct warranted punitive damages.

Punitive damages of $25,000 were awarded to punish and deter such misconduct.