|
Employment Cases - Wrongful Dismissal - Remedy - Punitive Damages. Humphrey v. Mene Inc.
In (Ont CA, 2022) the Court of Appeal considered cross-appeals on a wrongful dismissal case, here on the issue of punitive damages:[79] Punitive damages in breach of contract or tort cases are exceptional: their purpose is to punish a defendant for conduct that is reprehensible, and a “marked departure from ordinary standards of decent behaviour”. Whereas damages for conduct in the manner of dismissal are compensatory, punitive damages are “restricted to advertent wrongful acts that are so malicious and outrageous that they are deserving of punishment on their own”: Honda, at para. 62. They should be awarded, in addition to the compensatory damages already awarded, when rationally required to punish a defendant to meet the objectives of retribution, deterrence and denunciation, in an amount no greater than necessary to satisfy these objectives: Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2014 ONCA 419, 120 O.R. (3d) 481, at para. 79.
[80] An appellate court may interfere with a trial court’s assessment of punitive damages where (1) there is an error of law; or (2) the amount is not rationally connected to the purposes for which the damages are awarded, namely prevention, deterrence (both specific and general), and denunciation: Bank of Montreal v. Marcotte, 2014 SCC 55, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 725, at para. 98. When the quantum of punitive damages awarded is challenged, the question on appeal is “whether a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could have concluded that an award in that amount, and no less, was rationally required to punish the defendant’s misconduct”: Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595, at paras. 107-108. As observed by this court in Pate Estate v. Galway-Cavendish and Harvey (Township), 2013 ONCA 669, 117 O.R. (3d) 481, at para. 202, this standard emphasizes an appellate court’s supervisory obligation to ensure that an award of punitive damages is “the product of reason and rationality”: Whiten, at para. 108. . Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited
In Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited (Ont CA, 2022) the Court of Appeal heard a wrongful dismissal appeal, and considered whether to treat litigation misconduct as going towards punitive damages or to costs:(1) Punitive Damages
[86] In McCabe v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corp., 2019 ONCA 213, 146 O.R. (3d) 607, this court confirmed that litigation misconduct can be an independent actionable wrong that can give rise to an award of punitive damages: at para. 48. The trial judge declined to deal with the issue in that way, and instead determined that the respondent’s litigation misconduct could be addressed in the context of entitlement to costs. He was entitled to take that approach and his decision on this point is entitled to deference. As this court affirmed in McCabe, punitive damages remain “the exception rather than the norm”: at para. 48.
|
