Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. et al., 2002 SCC 18
| Judge | McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ. |
| Court | Supreme Court (Canada) |
| Case Date | December 14, 2000 |
| Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
| Citations | 2002 SCC 18;(2002), 283 N.R. 1 (SCC);20 BLR (3d) 165;AZ-50114260;111 ACWS (3d) 935;EYB 2002-28036;283 NR 1;209 DLR (4th) 257;[2002] CarswellOnt 537;58 OR (3d) 480;[2002] SCJ No 19 (QL);35 CCLI (3d) 1;[2002] ACS no 19;[2002] 1 SCR 595;[2002] ILR 1;156 OAC 201;JE 2002-405;[2001] OJ No 4676 (QL) |
Whiten v. Pilot Ins. (2002), 283 N.R. 1 (SCC)
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
....................
Temp. Cite: [2002] N.R. TBEd. FE.016
Daphne Whiten (appellant/respondent on cross-appeal) v. Pilot Insurance Company (respondent/appellant on cross-appeal) and the Insurance Council of Canada and the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (interveners)
(27229; 2002 SCC 18)
Indexed As: Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. et al.
Supreme Court of Canada
McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ.
February 22, 2002.
Summary:
Whiten's home was destroyed by fire. She claimed insurance proceeds under a homeowner's policy issued by Pilot Insurance Co. Pilot refused to pay, claiming that the fire was caused by arson. Whiten sued Pilot. A jury assessed damages of approximately $345,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 punitive damages. Pilot appealed the award of punitive damages.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, Laskin, J.A., dissenting in part, in a decision reported 117 O.A.C. 201, allowed the appeal and reduced the quantum of punitive damages to $100,000. Whiten appealed and Pilot cross-appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada, LeBel, J., dissenting, allowed the appeal and restored the jury award of $1,000,000 punitive damages, with costs in the Supreme Court and in the Court of Appeal on a party and party basis. Pilot's cross-appeal against the awarding of any punitive damages was dismissed, with costs to Whiten also on a party and party basis.
Damage Awards - Topic 2018.1
Exemplary or punitive damages - Breach of contract - [See Damage Awards - Topic 2021.2 ].
Damage Awards - Topic 2021.2
Exemplary or punitive damages - Insurers -Whiten's home was destroyed by fire - She claimed insurance proceeds under a homeowner's policy issued by Pilot Insurance Co. - Notwithstanding the recommendations of its own adjuster and experts, Pilot refused to pay, claiming that the fire was caused by arson - Whiten sued Pilot, but Pilot maintained its stance for over two years and forced an eight week trial - In the end, a jury assessed damages of $345,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 punitive damages - Pilot appealed the award of punitive damages - The Court of Appeal reduced the punitive damage award to $100,000 - Whiten appealed - The Supreme Court of Canada restored the jury award - The court opined that although it would not have awarded $1,000,000 in this case, the award was within the rational limits within which a jury must be allowed to operate - The award was not so disproportionate as to exceed the bounds of rationality - It did not overshoot its purpose - See paragraphs 1 to 142.
Damage Awards - Topic 2030.6
Exemplary or punitive damages - Breach of duty of good faith - [See Damage Awards - Topic 2021.2 ].
Damages - Topic 1296
Exemplary or punitive damages - General -The Supreme Court of Canada discussed generally the development of the law regarding punitive damages - The court, in particular, looked to how other common law jurisdictions have addressed the problem of disproportionate awards of punitive damages - See paragraphs 36 to 77.
Damages - Topic 1296
Exemplary or punitive damages - General -The Supreme Court of Canada set out the following principles regarding punitive damages: (1) limiting punitive damages by "categories" does not work and was rightly rejected in Vorvis (S.C.C. 1989); (2) the general objectives of punitive damages are punishment (in the sense of retribution), deterrence of the wrongdoer and others and denunciation; (3) the primary vehicle of punishment is the criminal law (and regulatory offences) and punitive damages should be resorted to only in exceptional cases and with restraint; (4) the time-honoured pejoratives ("high-handed", "oppressive", "vindictive", etc.) provide insufficient guidance to quantum - a more principled and less exhortatory approach is desirable; (5) in promoting rationality the court should relate the facts of the particular case to the underlying purposes of punitive damages and ask itself how, in particular, an award would further one or other of the objectives of the law, and what is the lowest award that would serve the purpose, i.e., because any higher award would be irrational; (6) it is rational to use punitive damages to relieve a wrongdoer of its profit where compensatory damages would be nothing more than a licence fee to earn greater profits through outrageous disregard of the rights of others; (7) no common law jurisdictions looked to by the court have adopted (except by statute) a fixed cap or fixed ratio between compensatory and punitive damages; (8) the governing rule for quantum is proportionality; (9) juries should receive more guidance and help from the judges in terms of their mandate; and (10) an appellate court is entitled to intervene if the award exceeds the outer boundaries of a rational and measured response to the facts of the case - See paragraphs 66 to 77.
Damages - Topic 1296
Exemplary or punitive damages - General -[See first and second Practice - Topic 5197 and first, second and third Practice -Topic 8806 ].
Damages - Topic 1305
Exemplary or punitive damages - Breach of contract - A jury awarded $1,000,000 in punitive damages against an insurer for failing to act in good faith in dealing with an insured's claim following a fire - On appeal an issue arose respecting whether a breach of the insurer's duty to act in good faith was an actionable wrong independent of the loss claim under the fire insurance policy such as to give rise to a claim for punitive damages - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a breach of the contractual duty of good faith was independent of and in addition to the breach of contractual duty to pay the loss - It constituted an "actionable wrong" within the Vorvis rule (S.C.C. 1989) - The court stated that Vorvis did not require an independent "tort" (i.e., punitive damages can be awarded in the absence of an accompanying tort) - See paragraphs 78 to 83.
Damages - Topic 1305
Exemplary or punitive damages - Breach of contract - [See Damage Awards - Topic 2021.2 ].
Damages - Topic 1305.1
Exemplary or punitive damages - Insurance claim denial - [See Damage Awards - Topic 2021.2 and first Damages - Topic 1305 ].
Damages - Topic 1330
Exemplary or punitive damages - Pleading - A jury awarded $1,000,000 in punitive damages against an insurer for failing to act in good faith in dealing with an insured's claim following a fire - On appeal, the insurer argued that the claim for punitive damages was not properly pleaded - Punitive and exemplary damages were explicitly requested, but the insurer argued that the material facts were not spelled out - The Supreme Court of Canada noted that the insured specifically asked for punitive damages and if the insurer was in any doubt about the facts giving rise to the claim it ought to have asked for particulars - The only surprise here was as to quantum - See paragraphs 84 to 92.
Damages - Topic 1330
Exemplary or punitive damages - Pleading - The Supreme Court of Canada noted that there was some case law holding that a claim for punitive damages need not be specifically pleaded as it was included conceptually in a claim for general damages - The court stated that the suggestion that no pleading is necessary overlooked the basic proposition in our justice system that before someone is punished they ought to have advance notice of the charge and an opportunity to respond - This can only be assured if the claim for punitive damages, as opposed to compensatory damages, is not buried in a general reference to general damages - The facts said to justify punitive damages should be pleaded with some particularity - The court stated, however, that whether a defendant has in fact been taken by surprise by a weak or defective pleading will have to be decided in the circumstances of a particular case - See paragraphs 86 to 88.
Practice - Topic 1458
Pleadings - Statement of claim - Necessity of claiming damages or relief - Punitive damages - [See second Damages - Topic 1330 ].
Practice - Topic 5197
Juries and jury trials - Charge to jury - Respecting assessment of damages - Punitive damages - The Supreme Court of Canada offered suggestions as to what a trial judge's charge should include in the future as regards punitive damages - The court stated that its particular expressions were not obligatory, rather what was essential in a particular case will be a function of its particular circumstances, the need to emphasize the nature, scope and exceptional nature of the remedy, and fairness to both sides - See paragraphs 94 and 95.
Practice - Topic 5197
Juries and jury trials - Charge to jury - Respecting assessment of damages - Punitive damages - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that as regards punitive damages: "if counsel can agree on a 'bracket' or 'range of an appropriate award, the trial judge should convey these figures to the jury, but at the present time specific figures should not be mentioned in the absence of such agreement (... This prohibition may have to be reexamined in future, based on further experience). Counsel should also consider the desirability of asking the trial judge to advise the jury of awards of punitive damages made in comparable circumstances that have been sustained on appeal". - See paragraph 98.
Practice - Topic 5197
Juries and jury trials - Charge to jury - Respecting assessment of damages - Punitive damages - A jury awarded $1,000,000 in punitive damages against an insurer for failing to act in good faith in dealing with an insured's claim following a fire - On appeal, the insurer argued that the jury charge regarding punitive damages was inadequate - The Supreme Court of Canada, "with some hesitation" agreed with the Court of Appeal that this ground of appeal should be rejected - The court stated that while there should be a more ample charge on the issue of punitive damages than was given in this case, the charge covered the essentials, however lightly, and neither counsel objected - See paragraphs 93 to 99.
Practice - Topic 8806
Appeals - General principles - Duty of appellate court regarding damage awards by a jury - Punitive damage awards - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the standard of appellate review applicable to punitive damages ultimately awarded, is that 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 - The rationality test applies both to the question of whether an award of punitive damages should be made at all, as well as to the question of quantum - See paragraphs 96 and 100 to 126.
Practice - Topic 8806
Appeals - General principles - Duty of appellate court regarding damage awards by a jury - Punitive damage awards - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that if the award of punitive damages, when added to the compensatory damages, produces a total sum that is so "inordinately large" that it exceeds what is "rationally" required to punish the defendant, it will be reduced or set aside on appeal - The court stated that in determining what is "inordinate" the court must come to grips with the issue of proportionality - The court stated that a proper award must look at proportionality in several dimensions, including whether the award is: (1) proportionate to the blameworthiness of the defendant's conduct; (2) proportionate to the degree of vulnerability of the plaintiff; (3) proportionate to the harm or potential harm directed specifically at the plaintiff; (4) proportionate to the need for deterrence; (5) proportionate, even after taking into account the other penalties, both civil and criminal, which have been or are likely to be inflicted on the defendant for the same misconduct; and (6) proportionate to the advantage wrongfully gained by the defendant from the misconduct - See paragraphs 111 to 126.
Practice - Topic 8806
Appeals - General principles - Duty of appellate court regarding damage awards by a jury - Punitive damage awards - A jury awarded $1,000,000 in punitive damages against an insurer for failing to act in good faith in dealing with an insured's claim following a fire - On appeal the insurer and its supporting intervener suggested that an award of $1,000,000 in punitive damages was out of line because compensatory damages were ultimately assessed only at about $345,000 - The result, they argued, was an improper ratio -The Supreme Court of Canada held that the "ratio" test was not an appropriate indicator of rationality - The court held that proportionality, which was the key to the permissible quantum of punitive damages, was a much broader concept than the simple relationship between punitive damages and compensatory damages - The court stated further, that adoption of such a ratio, while easy to supervise, would do a disservice to the unavoidable complexity of the analysis - See paragraph 127.
Practice - Topic 8806
Appeals - General principles - Duty of appellate court regarding damage awards by a jury - Punitive damage awards - [See Damage Awards - Topic 2021.2 ].
Cases Noticed:
Vorvis v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1085; 94 N.R. 321, refd to. [paras. 31, 149].
Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 701; 219 N.R. 161; 123 Man.R.(2d) 1; 159 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 31, 149].
Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto and Manning, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130; 184 N.R. 1; 84 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [paras. 36, 157].
Cassell & Co. v. Broome, [1972] A.C. 1027 (H.L.), affing. [1971] 2 Q.B. 354 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 38, 48, 158].
BMW of North America Inc. v. Gore (1996), 517 U.S. 559, refd to. [para. 39].
Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S. Inc., 1995 WL 360309 (N.M. Dist.), refd to. [para. 39].
Wilkes v. Wood (1763), Lofft. 1; 98 E.R. 489 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 40].
Huckle v. Money (1763), 2 Wils. K.B. 206; 95 E.R. 768 (K.B.), refd to. [para. 42].
Collette v. Lasnier (1886), 13 S.C.R. 563, refd to. [para. 44].
Rookes v. Barnard, [1964] A.C. 1129 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 47].
Kuddus v. Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary, [2001] 3 All E.R. 193; 273 N.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 47].
Uren v. Fairfax (John) & Sons Pty. Ltd. (1966), 117 C.L.R. 118 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 48].
Taylor v. Beere, [1982] 1 N.Z.L.R. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].
Conway v. Irish National Teachers' Organisation, [1991] 11 I.L.R.M. 497 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 48].
John v. MGN Ltd., [1997] Q.B. 586 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].
Thompson v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, [1997] 2 All E.R. 762 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].
Lamb v. Cotogno (1987), 164 C.L.R. 1 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 52].
XL Petroleum (N.S.W.) Pty. Ltd. v. Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty. Ltd. (1985), 155 C.L.R. 448 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 52].
Australian Consolidated Press Ltd. v. Uren (1966), 117 C.L.R. 185 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 53].
Whitfeld v. De Lauret & Co. (1920), 29 C.L.R. 71 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 53].
Gray v. Motor Accident Commission (1998), 196 C.L.R. 1 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 53].
M'Comb v. Low (1873), 1 N.Z. Jur. 49, refd to. [para. 55].
Donselaar v. Donselaar, [1982] 1 N.Z.L.R. 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].
Daniels v. Thompson, [1998] 3 N.Z.L.R. 22 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].
Cook v. Evatt (No. 2), [1992] 1 N.Z.L.R. 676 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 56].
McLaren Transport Ltd. v. Somerville, [1996] 3 N.Z.L.R. 424 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 56].
Aquaculture Corp. v. New Zealand Green Mussel Co., [1990] 3 N.Z.L.R. 299 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].
Coloca v. B.P. Australia Ltd., [1992] 2 V.R. 441 (Vic. S.C.), refd to. [para. 56].
L. v. Robinson, [2000] 3 N.Z.L.R. 499 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 56].
Ellison v. L., [1998] 1 N.Z.L.R. 416 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].
Auckland City Council v. Blundell, [1986] 1 N.Z.L.R. 732 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].
Green v. Matheson, [1989] 3 N.Z.L.R. 564 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].
McKenzie v. Attorney-General, [1992] 2 N.Z.L.R. 14 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].
Dunlea v. Attorney-General, [2000] 3 N.Z.L.R. 136 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].
W. v. W., [1999] 2 N.Z.L.R. 1 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 57].
Cooper v. O'Connell, No. 85/90-96, 1997 Ireland S.C. LEXIS, refd to. [para. 59].
Day v. Woodworth (1851), 54 U.S. (13 How.) 363, refd to. [para. 60].
Fay v. Parker (1872), 53 N.H. 342 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 60].
BMW of North America Inc. v. Gore (1997), 701 So.2d 507 (Ala.), refd to. [para. 63].
Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Haslip (1991), 499 U.S. 1, refd to. [para. 64].
Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg (1994), 512 U.S. 415, refd to. [para. 65].
TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp. (1993), 509 U.S. 443, refd to. [para. 65].
Cooper Industries Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group Inc. (2001), 121 S.Ct. 1678, refd to. [para. 65].
K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 67].
Denison v. Fawcett, [1958] O.R. 312 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].
Robitaille v. Vancouver Hockey Club Ltd. (1981), 124 D.L.R.(3d) 228 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].
Buxbaum v. Buxbaum, [1997] O.A.C. Uned. 562 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].
Glendale v. Drozdzik (1993), 25 B.C.A.C. 14; 43 W.A.C. 14; 77 B.C.L.R.(2d) 106 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].
Pollard v. Gibson (1986), 1 Y.R. 167 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 69].
Joanisse v. D.Y. (1995), 15 B.C.L.R.(3d) 224 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 69].
Canada v. Lukasik (1985), 58 A.R. 313; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 245 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 69].
Wittig et al. v. Wittig (1986), 53 Sask.R. 138 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 69].
Royal Bank of Canada v. Got (W.) & Associates Electric Ltd. et al., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 408; 247 N.R. 1; 250 A.R. 1; 213 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 81].
Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109, refd to. [para. 82].
Andrusiw v. Aetna Life Insurance Co. of Canada (2001), 289 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 83].
Edwards and Waltham Creative Printing Ltd. v. Harris-Intertype (Canada) Ltd. (1983), 40 O.R.(2d) 558 (H.C.), affd. (1984), 4 O.A.C. 154; 9 D.L.R.(4th) 319 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].
Grenn v. Brampton Poultry Co. (1959), 18 D.L.R.(2d) 9 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].
Starkman v. Delhi Court Ltd. (1960), 24 D.L.R.(2d) 152 (Ont. H.C.), affd. (1961), 28 D.L.R.(2d) 269 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].
Gastebled v. Stuyck (1973), 12 C.P.R.(2d) 102 (F.C.T.D.), affd. (1974), 6 N.R. 178; 15 C.P.R.(2d) 137 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].
Paragon Properties Ltd. v. Magna Envestments Ltd. (1972), 24 D.L.R.(3d) 156 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].
Rieger et al. v. Burgess et al., [1988] 4 W.W.R. 577; 66 Sask.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].
Lauscher v. Berryere (Bankrupt) et al. (1999), 177 Sask.R. 219; 199 W.A.C. 219; 172 D.L.R.(4th) 439 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 86].
Walker and Walker Brothers Quarries Ltd. v. CFTO Ltd. et al. (1987), 19 O.A.C. 10; 59 O.R.(2d) 104 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 108].
Patenaude v. Roy (1994), 123 D.L.R.(4th) 78 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].
Recovery Production Equipment Ltd. v. McKinney Machine Co. (1998), 223 A.R. 24; 183 W.A.C. 24 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].
Mustaji v. Tjin et al. (1996), 78 B.C.A.C. 178; 128 W.A.C. 178; 30 C.C.L.T.(2d) 53 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].
Québec (Curateur public) v. Syndicat national des employés de l'Hôpital St-Ferdinand et autres (1994), 66 Q.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].
Matusiak et al. v. British Columbia and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council et al. (1999), 22 B.C.T.C. 193 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 113].
Gerula v. Flores (1995), 83 O.A.C. 128; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 506 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].
Walker v. D'Arcy Moving & Storage Ltd. et al. (1999), 117 O.A.C. 367 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].
United Services Funds (Trustees) v. Hennessey, [1994] O.J. No. 1391 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 113].
Williams v. Motorola Ltd., [1998] O.A.C. Uned. 321; 38 C.C.E.L.(2d) 76 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].
Procor Ltd. v. United Steelworkers of America (1990), 71 O.R.(2d) 410 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 113].
Claiborne Industries Ltd. et al. v. National Bank of Canada et al. (1989), 34 O.A.C. 241; 69 O.R.(2d) 65 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].
Horseshoe Bay Retirement Society v. S.I.F. Development Corp. (1990), 66 D.L.R.(4th) 42 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 113].
Kates v. Hall (1991), 53 B.C.L.R.(2d) 322 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113].
Muir v. Alberta, [1996] 4 W.W.R. 177; 179 A.R. 321 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 113].
L.R. v. Nyp (1995), 25 C.C.L.T.(2d) 309 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 113].
Weinstein and Vaudreuil v. Bucar, [1990] 6 W.W.R. 615; 68 Man.R.(2d) 155 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 113].
Norberg v. Wynrib, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226; 138 N.R. 81; 9 B.C.A.C. 1; 19 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 114].
Nantel v. Parisien (1981), 18 C.C.L.T. 79 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 124].
Lubrizol Corp. et al. v. Imperial Oil Ltd. et al. (1994), 84 F.T.R. 197 (T.D.), revd. [1996] 3 F.C. 40; 197 N.R. 241 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 125].
Westbank Band of Indians v. Tomat, [1989] B.C.J. No. 1638 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 136].
Ratych v. Bloomer, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 940; 107 N.R. 335; 39 O.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 147].
G.T.-J. et al. v. Griffiths et al., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 570; 241 N.R. 201; 124 B.C.A.C. 161; 203 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 147].
Edwards et al. v. Law Society of Upper Canada et al. (2001), 277 N.R. 145; 153 O.A.C. 388 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 152].
Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al. (2001), 277 N.R. 113 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 152].
Cooper v. Hobart - see Cooper v. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers (B.C.) et al.
Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 152].
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928), 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y.), refd to. [para. 153].
Canadian National Railway Co. et al. v. Norsk Pacific Steamship Co. and Tug Jervis Crown et al., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 1021; 137 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 155].
Andrews et al. v. Grand and Toy (Alberta) Ltd. et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229; 19 N.R. 50; 8 A.R. 182, refd to. [para. 164].
Thornton v. Board of School Trustees of School District No. 57 (Prince George) et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 267; 19 N.R. 552, refd to. [para. 164].
Teno et al. v. Arnold et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287; 19 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 164].
Neuzen v. Korn, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 674; 188 N.R. 161; 64 B.C.A.C. 241; 105 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 164].
ter Neuzen v. Korn - see Neuzen v. Korn.
Caron et al. v. Chodan Estate et al. (1992), 58 O.A.C. 173 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 167].
Gray v. Alanco Developments Ltd., [1967] 1 O.R. 597 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 167].
Howes et al. v. Crosby et al. (1984), 2 O.A.C. 375; 45 O.R.(2d) 449 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 167].
Authors and Works Noticed:
American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law (Second), Contracts (1981), generally [paras. 78, 80].
Bible, Exodus 22:1 [para. 41].
Chapman, Bruce, and Trebilcock, Michael, Punitive Damages: Divergence in Search of a Rationale (1989), 40 Alta. L. Rev. 741, p. 744 [para. 43].
Cohen Melnitzer's Civil Procedure in Practice - see Vogel, Paul G., Cohen Melnitzer's Civil Procedure in Practice.
Feldthusen, Bruce, Punitive Damages: Hard Choices and High Stakes, [1998] N.Z. L. Rev. 741, p. 742 [para. 44].
Feldthusen, Bruce, Recent Developments in the Canadian Law of Punitive Damages (1990), 16 Can. Bus. L.J. 241, generally [para. 156].
Halsbury's Laws of Australia (1995), vol. 9, paras. 135 to 505 [para. 53].
Halsbury's Laws of England (1998) (4th Ed. - Reissue), vol. 12(1), paras. 1115 to 1117 [para. 50].
Hibbert, Christopher, The Roots of Evil: A Social History of Crime and Punishment (1963), pp. 3 to 5 [para. 152].
Holmested and Watson, Ontario Civil Procedure (1984) (2001 Looseleaf Update) (Release No. 5), vol. 1, p. CHA-242 [para. 167].
Ireland, Law Reform Commission, Consultation Paper on Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary Damages (1998), generally [para. 59].
Linden, Allen M., Canadian Tort Law (6th Ed. 1997), pp. 4 to 7 [para. 146].
McGregor on Damages (16th Ed. 1997), paras. 461 to 470 [para. 50].
Ontario, Law Reform Commission, Report on Exemplary Damages (June 1, 1991), pp. 37 [para. 161]; 46 [para. 69]; 93, 98 [para. 44].
Pollock, Torts (11th Ed.), p. 455 [para. 153].
Schlueter, Linda L., and Redden, Kenneth R., Punitive Damages (4th Ed. 2000), vol. 1, c. 3, generally [para. 61].
United Kingdom, House of Commons, 6th Series, Written Answers to Questions (November 9, 1999), col. 502, generally [para. 49].
United Kingdom, Law Commission, Report on Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary Damages (1997), Law Comm. No. 247, para. 1.2 [para. 48]; Part 1, para. 17 [para. 49]; Part 4 [para. 50]; Part 5, para. 82 [para. 49].
Vogel, Paul G., Cohen Melnitzer's Civil Procedure in Practice (1989) (1990 Looseleaf Update) (Release No. 1), vol. 1, p. 12-20 [para. 167].
Watson, Garry D., and Perkins, Craig, Holmested and Watson, Ontario Civil Procedure - see Holmested and Watson, Ontario Civil Procedure.
Weinrib, Ernest J., The Idea of Private Law (1995), p. 52 [para. 153].
Windeyer, William John Victor, Lectures on Legal History (2nd Rev. Ed. 1957), pp. 17, 63 [para. 152].
Counsel:
Gary R. Will and Anil Varma, for the appellant/respondent on cross-appeal;
Earl A. Cherniak, Q.C., and Kirk F. Stevens, for the respondent/appellant on cross-appeal;
Neil Finkelstein, Melanie L. Aitken and Russell Cohen, for the intervener, the Insurance Council of Canada;
Robert B. Munroe, Andrew J. Spurgeon and Thomas P. Connolly, for the intervener, the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association.
Solicitors of Record:
MacMillan Rooke Boeckle, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant/respondent on cross-appeal;
Lerner & Associates, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent/appellant on cross-appeal;
Davies, Phillips & Vineberg, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Insurance Council of Canada;
Ross & McBride, Hamilton, Ontario, for the intervener, the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association.
This appeal and cross-appeal were heard on December 14, 2000, before McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major, Binnie, Arbour and LeBel, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered in both official languages on February 22, 2002, when the following opinions were filed:
Binnie, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, Major and Arbour, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 142;
LeBel, J., dissenting - see paragraphs 143 to 169.
To continue reading
Request your trial