Punitive Damages

Cable Assembly Systems Ltd. v. Barnes, 2019 ONCA 1013 (CanLII)

[16] Punitive damages, unlike compensatory damages, are not at large. As a result, an appellate court has a much broader scope for review on an appeal from an award of punitive damages. As Cory J. stated in Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, 1995 CanLII 59 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130, at para. 197, “[t]he appellate review should be based upon the court's estimation as to whether the punitive damages serve a rational purpose.”

[17] It is well established that punitive damages are exceptional for “malicious, oppressive and high-handed misconduct that offends the court's sense of decency": per Binnie J. in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18 (CanLII), at para. 36. They are only to be awarded where compensatory damages are inadequate to accomplish the objectives of retribution, deterrence, and condemnation: Pate Estate v. Galway-Cavendish (Township), 2013 ONCA 669 (CanLII), at para. 211; Filice v. Complex Services Inc., 2018 ONCA 625 (CanLII), at para. 57.

[18] When considering whether to award punitive damages and in quantifying those damages where such an award is justified, trial judges must consider the punitive components of the compensation otherwise awarded and determine whether they adequately serve to achieve the objectives of retribution, deterrence and condemnation. Failure to do so is an error in principle. See: Pate, at para. 214; Filice, at paras. 59-61.