Randall Paul Hosack

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 court determined the appropriate costs award following a successful application to remove a caution registered against title to property.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, alleging the respondent misled the Land Registrar about the existence of an agreement of purchase and sale and failed to serve notice of the caution.

The court held that pre‑litigation requests for relief and the strength of the applicant’s case alone do not justify elevated costs.

However, the respondent’s misrepresentation to the Registrar and failure to provide required notice justified substantial indemnity costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant’s claimed costs of $12,536.89 were found reasonable and were awarded in full.

The applicant mortgagee brought an application seeking a declaration that the respondent purchaser had no interest in land and an order directing the Land Registrar to remove a caution registered against title.

The caution was based on an agreement of purchase and sale that had been extended multiple times but ultimately collapsed when the purchaser was unable to provide a required deposit and advised that he could not complete the transaction.

The respondent argued that an oral agreement between a lender and the applicant’s lawyer further extended the closing date.

The court held that no enforceable oral extension existed, that any such agreement would be inconsistent with the written contract and barred by the parol evidence rule, and that the purchaser had anticipatorily breached the agreement.

As the respondent no longer had any interest in the land, the caution was invalid and ordered removed from title.