31:
347:
specialist without explanation of the purpose, methodology, and parameters of the consultation. Keays did not come to work for a week following this incident. On his return, he was given a written warning that failure to meet with the specialist would result in his termination. He refused to do so, and Honda terminated his employment. Keays subsequently sued Honda for wrongful dismissal.
431:
granted the largest award of punitive damages in a wrongful dismissal case in
Canadian judicial history, and it created considerable discussion as to whether it was a harbinger of things to come. It was also argued that the Court of Appeal ruling could be used in support of expanded damage awards at
408:, writing for the court regarding the availability of punitive damages, held that acts of discrimination in breach of human rights legislation may serve as a separate actionable wrong so as to give rise to a punitive damages award in a wrongful dismissal case. He rejected Honda's argument that the
346:
In its meeting with Keays, Honda expressed concern over deficiencies in the notes from Keays' doctor(s), and advised in such matters they deal with associates directly and not with third-party advocates. The next day, Keays told Honda that, on the advice of counsel, he would not meet with the
342:
specialist to determine how his disability could be accommodated. Before a meeting could be arranged, Keays retained counsel out of concern that he would ultimately be terminated. His counsel sent a letter outlining his concerns and offering to work toward resolution. Honda did not respond.
468:
observed that the trial judge made several "palpable and overriding errors", which made it necessary to review the record in some detail. The case also presented an opportunity "to clarify and redefine some aspects of the law of damages in the context of employment", and more specifically:
524:
principle. Moreover, in cases where damages are awarded, no extension of the notice period is to be used to determine the proper amount to be paid. The amount is to be fixed according to the same principles and in the same way as in all other cases dealing with moral
499:
Damages are confined to the loss suffered as a result of the employer’s failure to give proper notice and that no damages are available to the employee for the actual loss of his or her job and/or pain and distress that may have been suffered as a consequence of being
255:, the Supreme Court held that bad faith on the part of an employer in how it handled the termination of an employee was another factor that is properly compensated for by an addition to the period of reasonable notice. Such an increase came to be known as the "
628:
framework for awarding damages for all reasonably foreseeable losses arising from a breach of contract—rather, damages for mental distress in the manner of dismissal should be justified by reference to the employer's obligation of good faith in the manner of
495:
The particular circumstances of the individual should be the concern of the courts in determining the appropriate period of reasonable notice. Traditional presumptions about the role that managerial level plays in reasonable notice can always be rebutted by
334:
benefits until 1998, when the insurance company determined that he could return to work full‑time. Keays continued to absent himself, and was placed in Honda's disability program, wherein absence was allowed with proof it was related to a disability.
419:, writing for a 2–1 majority, held that punitive damages must be reduced, because the trial judge had relied on findings of fact not supported by the evidence and because the award failed to accord with the fundamental principle of proportionality.
545:
By extension, discrimination is precluded as an independent cause of action, as a plaintiff is precluded from pursuing a common law remedy when human rights legislation contains a comprehensive enforcement scheme for violations of its substantive
503:
It was no longer necessary that there be an independent actionable wrong before damages for mental distress can be awarded for breach of contract, and therefore there is only one rule by which compensatory damages for breach of contract should be
460:
The appeal was allowed in part, and the cross-appeal was dismissed. The damages for conduct in dismissal and punitive damages awards were set aside. At other levels, costs should be at a partial indemnity scale and the cost premium set aside.
588:
Concern has been expressed that the majority opinion misconstrued Honda's actions, as the facts tend to suggest that Honda was trying to intimidate Keays, implying that he was either mistaken or dishonest about his condition (as noted in the
541:
There was no breach of human rights legislation serving as an actionable wrong. Creating a disability program such as the one in place at Honda cannot be equated with a malicious intent to discriminate against persons with a particular
267:
It has been long accepted that employers should be discouraged from asserting "soft" cases of just cause. Indeed, there are sanctions against counsel and their clients who assert cause and then abandon it at the outset of trial.
599:
Employees have lost their bargaining power during severance negotiations, as any claim for bad-faith damages must be advanced in the context of litigation, and employees must also prove the detrimental effects of any damages
492:
Reasonable notice is determined by the character of the employment, the length of service, the age of the employee and the availability of similar employment, having regard to experience, training and qualifications.
620:
damages must be made available to employees who have mitigated their losses by securing other work during the notice period. Accordingly, under other SCC case law, damages for bad faith are not subject to
609:
The court's decision means the focus remains on whether an employer has acted candidly, reasonably, and honestly in the manner of dismissal. There is no new or higher threshold for establishing bad faith
733:
damages are being applied to other kinds of losses the employee actually suffers as a result of the employer's conduct, but there is resistance in the appellate courts as to whether they are appropriate.
293:
claims" which are clearly without merit and should not have been advanced. Sanctions could include a diminution of either the costs award or the amount awarded for such dismissal claims. Unmeritorious
384:
Because of Honda's "litany of acts of discrimination and harassment in relation to his attempts to resolve his accommodation difficulties", $ 500,000 in punitive damages was awarded to Keays.
364:
ruled in favour of Keays. Justice John McIsaac concluded that Honda bore the burden to show just cause for termination and that it had failed to carry that burden. Specifically, he ruled:
1576:
412:
offers a complete remedial scheme that permits punitive damages only in the event of prosecution with the written consent of the
Attorney General and only to a maximum fine of $ 25,000.
301:
I make no reduction in the amount awarded to this plaintiff in this instance, nor do I reduce the amount granted for costs. However, in future cases, clearly unmeritorious claims for "
278:
Such claims seriously impede the potential consensual resolution of disputes which could otherwise be settled well short of trial. Additionally, the assertion and defence of specious "
511:, namely where the employer engages in conduct during the course of dismissal that is "unfair or is in bad faith by being, for example, untruthful, misleading or unduly insensitive."
1259:
1064:
1609:
381:
Since Keays did not plead aggravated damages, his claim for lost disability benefits based on his total disability caused by the wrongful termination was denied.
1411:
1684:
720:
damages on the employer's bad faith conduct alone without looking at evidence of the actual mental distress the conduct actually inflicted on the employee.
1037:
810:
125:
No presumptions about the role that an employee's managerial level plays should be adopted in determining reasonable notice on termination of employment.
451:
Keays cross-appealed with respect to the reduction in punitive damages, as well as arguing that a separate tort of discrimination should be recognized.
1675:
1385:
1642:
596:
into
Canadian employment law, the court rescinded a century's worth of case law that recognized the special significance of the employment contract.
371:
Because the notice period was increased, it was not necessary to award additional damages for the infliction of nervous shock or emotional distress.
1553:
1761:
1592:
282:
claims" can consume large amounts of valuable court time; can increase the costs to all concerned; and can generally drive the parties apart.
1710:
129:
1267:
338:
Subsequent absence proved to be of longer duration than indicated in notes from his doctor(s). In 2000 Honda asked Keays to meet with an
1776:
368:
Keays was entitled to 15 months' notice, which was increased to 24 months because of Honda's bad faith in the manner of the termination.
606:
also demonstrates that the
Supreme Court of Canada is prepared to intervene and "right a ship" that it believes has drifted off course.
1766:
613:
The judgment is clear in that, as long as causation is proven, the employer must compensate the employee for the harm he has suffered.
251:
1781:
1464:
942:
361:
104:
649:
Subsequent jurisprudence has identified several key areas where an employer's conduct will constitute bad faith that will attract
1524:
836:
1771:
507:
Damages resulting from the manner of dismissal must then be available only if they result from the circumstances described in
133:, and such damages should be awarded through an award that reflects actual damages rather than by extending the notice period.
517:
makes it unnecessary to pursue an extended analysis of the scope of any implied duty of good faith in an employment contract.
573:") damages should stand, as there was ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion that Honda acted in bad faith.
861:
315:
387:
Keays was awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, adding a 25 percent premium, which together totalled $ 610,000.
298:
claims" for bad faith firings ought not to be an apparently automatic inclusion in every plaintiff's prayer for relief.
1658:
1625:
880:
397:
92:
127:
Damages resulting from the manner of dismissal will be available if they result from the circumstances described in
1081:
378:, such complaints could constitute "independent actionable wrongs" such as to trigger an award of punitive damages.
1460:
1419:
938:
88:
973:
800:
978:
473:
What factors should be considered when allocating compensatory damages in lieu of notice for wrongful dismissal.
100:
1049:
1045:
327:
289:
damage claims", thought must be given in future cases to appropriate deterrents against plaintiffs who assert "
565:
While agreeing with the majority with respect to setting aside the punitive damages and cost premium, Justice
787:
221:
36:
1389:
885:
823:
815:
1491:
1483:
1444:
416:
259:
bump," and claims that included it became so frequent that the courts began to criticize the practice. In
1693:
907:
448:
Honda appealed with respect to the finding of wrongful dismissal, the award of damages and cost premium.
339:
538:
Punitive damages were not well justified, as there was no basis for the judge’s decision on the facts.
30:
1564:
1532:
1336:
1227:
866:
841:
767:
549:
Honda's conduct was not sufficiently egregious or outrageous to warrant an award of punitive damages.
331:
232:
and it declared that such awards were not affected by the type of position an employee may have had.
217:
374:
While the court did not have jurisdiction to consider a tort based on a breach of rights under the
1733:
846:
326:, to work first on the assembly line and later in data entry. In 1997 he was diagnosed as having
229:
182:
147:
1697:
1662:
1629:
1508:
701:
Employees have been suing—successfully in many cases—for an extension of the notice period as
520:
Damages attributable to conduct in the manner of dismissal are always to be awarded under the
465:
405:
154:
1038:"The availability of punitive damages arising from the breach of human rights legislation:
115:
Appeal allowed in part, Justices LeBel and Fish dissenting in part. Cross‑appeal dismissed.
479:
The need to avoid overlap of damages for conduct in dismissal and punitive damage awards.
441:
166:
1786:
225:
178:
174:
1755:
1536:
62:
271:
The time has now come to express this Court's disapproval of routine assertions of "
805:
305:
damages", having little or no foundation on the evidence, may well face sanctions.
197:
Bastarache, joined by McLachlin, Binnie, Deschamps, Abella, Charron, and
Rothstein
444:
was granted with costs in any event of the cause by the
Supreme Court of Canada:
693:
be reserved for special cases and not be handed out as a matter of course, post-
616:
In order to ensure that employers treat people fairly at the time of dismissal,
566:
228:, in that it reformed the manner in which damages are to be awarded in cases of
170:
162:
400:
dismissed the appeal, but reduced the amount of punitive damages to $ 100,000.
285:
While these comments are not, in any way, intended to discourage meritorious "
158:
1701:
1666:
1633:
1065:"Significant Human Rights Decision Upheld at Court of Appeal: Keays v. Honda"
319:
552:
The premium assessed on costs was set aside, under the rule adopted in
323:
1523:
Tina
Giesbrecht; Kelly McDermott; Kate McNeill-Keller (27 June 2008).
640:
damages may result in higher monetary awards in certain circumstances.
1643:"Wrongful dismissal - bad faith damages in Canadian employment law:
1078:
Honda Canada Inc. operating as Honda of Canada Mfg. v. Kevin Keays
476:
The basis for and calculation of damages for conduct in dismissal.
56:
Honda Canada Inc. operating as Honda of Canada Mfg. v. Kevin Keays
1513:
at the SCC: Re-thinking compensation for the manner of dismissal"
624:
It is argued that the court was incorrect in its acceptance of a
1676:"Clarity and confusion in employment law remedies: a comment on
1610:"Different doesn't necessarily mean different: a discussion of
636:
not to be dead, but to have evolved, and others point out that
844: at par. 49 and 54, 2 SCR 3 (29 June 2006), based on
666:
Firing the employee to ensure deprivation of a benefit, and
1563:. Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP. Archived from
918:
916:
660:
Damaging the employee's prospects of finding another job,
1558:: The Supreme Court strikes down landmark damages award"
1287:
1285:
1316:
1314:
1312:
275:
damage" claims which are not justified by the facts.
1264:: The SCC Says Employer Intimidation Is Just Fine!"
820:
584:has attracted considerable debate and controversy:
201:
193:
188:
138:
119:
111:
79:
71:
61:
51:
44:
23:
1486: (13 October 2009); appeal allowed in part in
1388:. HRInsider.ca. 30 September 2010. Archived from
1418:. hrinsider.ca. 23 November 2010. Archived from
432:arbitration and before human rights tribunals.
265:
8:
663:Misrepresenting the reasons for termination,
224:that has had significant impact in Canadian
1709:Nancy M. Shapiro; Aaron Hart (April 2010).
1685:University of Toronto Faculty of Law Review
1360:
922:
1303:
837:Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada
811:Peso Silver Mines Ltd. (N.P.L.) v. Cropper
808:, AC 488 (26 July 1909), affirmed in
669:Firing the employee in front of coworkers.
18:Canadian Supreme Court employment law case
1067:. Cavaluzzo Shilton McIntyre Cornish LLP.
645:Determination of "bad faith" by employers
330:, upon which he ceased work and received
95:(Ontario, Canada), reversing in part
1475:
1473:
697:cases are revealing significant trends:
569:believed that the award of additional ("
1651:University of New Brunswick Law Journal
1618:University of New Brunswick Law Journal
1291:
900:
743:
1412:"Wrongful Dismissal - The New Face of
1320:
220:, 2 SCR 362 is a leading case of the
20:
1333:Evans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31
7:
1372:
1348:
1036:Carman J. Overholt (December 2006).
782:(1960), 24 DLR (2d) 140, adopted in
484:Damages in the context of employment
130:Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd.
1732:. Koskie Minsky LLP. Archived from
1552:Catherine L. Peters (2 July 2008).
941:, OJ 5238 (16 December 2004),
908:SCC Case Information - Docket 31739
869:, 1 SCR 595 (22 February 2002)
464:Before analyzing the case, Justice
1585:for the Damages Formerly Known as
1488:Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. v. Soost
1480:Soost v. Merrill Lynch Canada Inc.
1230:, 2 SCR 428 (13 October 2006)
1063:Kate A. Hughes (31 October 2006).
818:, SCR 673 (20 June 1966) and
252:Wallace v United Grain Growers Ltd
14:
1258:Christopher Bird (10 July 2008).
784:Machtinger v. HOJ Industries Ltd.
362:Ontario Superior Court of Justice
790:, 1 SCR 986 (30 April 1992)
727:damages are increasing in value.
29:
1457:Brien v. Niagara Motors Limited
888:, 2 SCR 181 (22 June 1981)
780:Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd.
770:, 2 SCR 161 (28 June 2001)
1608:Michael P. Fitzgibbon (2009).
826:, 1 SCR 1085 (4 May 1989)
488:Justice Bastarache held that:
1:
1762:Supreme Court of Canada cases
1591:. thecourt.ca. Archived from
1339:, 1 SCR 661 (1 May 2008)
1266:. thecourt.ca. Archived from
862:Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co.
859:according to the criteria in
850:, (1854) 9 Ex 341, 156 ER 145
316:Honda of Canada Manufacturing
83:APPEAL and CROSS‑APPEAL from
1575:Ryan Edmonds (1 July 2009).
1659:University of New Brunswick
1626:University of New Brunswick
881:Seneca College v. Bhadauria
712:Courts seem to be ignoring
398:Court of Appeal for Ontario
314:Keays was hired in 1986 by
1803:
1777:Canadian contract case law
1678:Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays
1645:Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays
1612:Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays
1556:Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays
1527:Keays v. Honda Canada Inc.
97:Keays v. Honda Canada Inc.
91: (29 September 2006),
85:Keays v. Honda Canada Inc.
45:Hearing: 20 February 2008
1767:2008 in Canadian case law
1641:Daniel A. Lublin (2009).
1465:Superior Court of Justice
943:Superior Court of Justice
801:Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd
657:Making false accusations,
143:
124:
105:Superior Court of Justice
28:
1782:Canadian labour case law
1046:Canadian Bar Association
328:chronic fatigue syndrome
213:Honda Canada Inc v Keays
24:Honda Canada Inc v Keays
1674:Paul-Erik Veel (2009).
1507:Anne Côté (Fall 2008).
1463: (20 August 2008),
1361:Shapiro & Hart 2010
923:Shapiro & Hart 2010
910:Supreme Court of Canada
723:There is evidence that
261:Yanez v. Canac Kitchens
241:Widespread use of the "
222:Supreme Court of Canada
67:2008 SCC 39, 2 SCR 362
37:Supreme Court of Canada
1772:Canadian tort case law
1156:SCC, par. 57, quoting
935:Yanez v Canac Kitchens
632:Most lawyers consider
530:Majority in the appeal
392:In the Court of Appeal
307:
103: (17 March 2005),
47:Judgment: 27 June 2008
1694:University of Toronto
1511:Honda Canada v. Keays
1494: (27 August 2010)
1467:(Ontario, Canada)
1262:Keays v. Honda Canada
977:, RSO 1990, c. H.19 (
945:(Ontario, Canada)
806:[1909] UKHL 1
561:Dissent in the appeal
534:In the case at hand:
340:occupational medicine
263:, Echlin J declared:
205:LeBel, joined by Fish
107:(Ontario, Canada)
1441:Slepenkova v. Ivanov
1386:"Wrongful Dismissal"
1084: (29 March 2007)
685:While the effect of
456:At the Supreme Court
332:disability insurance
1447: (25 June 2009)
981:at ServiceOntario)
705:damages even after
689:was to ensure that
1739:on 4 December 2013
847:Hadley v Baxendale
764:McKinley v. BC Tel
230:wrongful dismissal
183:Marshall Rothstein
148:Beverley McLachlin
1570:on 27 April 2014.
1533:McCarthy TĂ©trault
1461:2008 CanLII 41823
1248:SCC, par. 114–117
1224:Walker v. Ritchie
1082:2007 CanLII 10545
1052:on 20 April 2013.
979:Human Rights Code
974:Human Rights Code
939:2004 CanLII 48176
592:By incorporating
554:Walker v. Ritchie
466:Michel Bastarache
406:Stephen T. Goudge
376:Human Rights Code
356:At first instance
209:
208:
155:Michel Bastarache
89:2006 CanLII 33191
1794:
1748:
1746:
1744:
1738:
1731:
1705:
1670:
1637:
1604:
1602:
1600:
1595:on 27 April 2014
1571:
1569:
1562:
1548:
1546:
1544:
1539:on 26 April 2014
1535:. Archived from
1519:
1517:
1495:
1477:
1468:
1454:
1448:
1438:
1432:
1431:
1429:
1427:
1422:on 27 April 2014
1408:
1402:
1401:
1399:
1397:
1392:on 26 April 2014
1382:
1376:
1370:
1364:
1358:
1352:
1346:
1340:
1330:
1324:
1318:
1307:
1301:
1295:
1289:
1280:
1279:
1277:
1275:
1270:on 27 April 2014
1255:
1249:
1246:
1240:
1237:
1231:
1221:
1215:
1212:
1206:
1203:
1197:
1194:
1188:
1185:
1179:
1176:
1170:
1167:
1161:
1154:
1148:
1145:
1139:
1136:
1130:
1127:
1121:
1118:
1112:
1109:
1103:
1100:
1094:
1091:
1085:
1075:
1069:
1068:
1060:
1054:
1053:
1048:. Archived from
1033:
1027:
1024:
1018:
1015:
1009:
1006:
1000:
997:
991:
988:
982:
970:
964:
961:
955:
952:
946:
932:
926:
920:
911:
905:
889:
876:
870:
857:
851:
833:
827:
797:
791:
777:
771:
760:
754:
748:
351:The courts below
310:The case at hand
152:Puisne Justices:
139:Court membership
101:2005 CanLII 8730
33:
21:
1802:
1801:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1752:
1751:
1742:
1740:
1736:
1729:
1708:
1673:
1640:
1607:
1598:
1596:
1574:
1567:
1560:
1551:
1542:
1540:
1522:
1515:
1506:
1503:
1501:Further reading
1498:
1478:
1471:
1455:
1451:
1439:
1435:
1425:
1423:
1410:
1409:
1405:
1395:
1393:
1384:
1383:
1379:
1371:
1367:
1359:
1355:
1347:
1343:
1331:
1327:
1319:
1310:
1304:Fitzgibbon 2009
1302:
1298:
1290:
1283:
1273:
1271:
1257:
1256:
1252:
1247:
1243:
1238:
1234:
1222:
1218:
1213:
1209:
1204:
1200:
1196:SCC, par. 67–68
1195:
1191:
1186:
1182:
1177:
1173:
1168:
1164:
1155:
1151:
1147:SCC, par. 54–55
1146:
1142:
1137:
1133:
1128:
1124:
1120:SCC, par. 28–29
1119:
1115:
1111:SCC, par. 21–24
1110:
1106:
1101:
1097:
1092:
1088:
1076:
1072:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1035:
1034:
1030:
1025:
1021:
1016:
1012:
1007:
1003:
998:
994:
989:
985:
971:
967:
962:
958:
953:
949:
933:
929:
921:
914:
906:
902:
898:
893:
892:
877:
873:
858:
854:
834:
830:
798:
794:
788:1992 CanLII 102
778:
774:
761:
757:
749:
745:
740:
691:Wallace damages
683:
647:
579:
563:
532:
486:
458:
442:leave to appeal
440:In March 2007,
438:
436:Leave to appeal
426:
424:National debate
394:
358:
353:
312:
247:
238:
167:Marie Deschamps
150:
93:Court of Appeal
46:
40:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1800:
1798:
1790:
1789:
1784:
1779:
1774:
1769:
1764:
1754:
1753:
1750:
1749:
1706:
1671:
1638:
1605:
1579:Honda v. Keays
1572:
1549:
1520:
1502:
1499:
1497:
1496:
1469:
1449:
1433:
1403:
1377:
1365:
1353:
1341:
1325:
1308:
1296:
1281:
1250:
1241:
1232:
1216:
1207:
1198:
1189:
1180:
1171:
1162:
1149:
1140:
1131:
1122:
1113:
1104:
1095:
1086:
1070:
1055:
1040:Keays v. Honda
1028:
1019:
1010:
1001:
992:
983:
965:
956:
947:
927:
912:
899:
897:
894:
891:
890:
886:1981 CanLII 29
871:
852:
828:
824:1989 CanLII 93
816:1966 CanLII 75
792:
772:
755:
750:as defined in
742:
741:
739:
736:
735:
734:
728:
721:
710:
682:
678:damages after
672:
671:
670:
667:
664:
661:
658:
646:
643:
642:
641:
630:
622:
614:
611:
607:
601:
597:
590:
578:
575:
562:
559:
558:
557:
550:
547:
543:
539:
531:
528:
527:
526:
518:
512:
505:
501:
497:
493:
485:
482:
481:
480:
477:
474:
457:
454:
453:
452:
449:
437:
434:
425:
422:
421:
420:
417:Marc Rosenberg
413:
393:
390:
389:
388:
385:
382:
379:
372:
369:
357:
354:
352:
349:
311:
308:
246:
239:
237:
234:
226:employment law
207:
206:
203:
202:Concur/dissent
199:
198:
195:
191:
190:
186:
185:
179:Louise Charron
175:Rosalie Abella
145:Chief Justice:
141:
140:
136:
135:
122:
121:
117:
116:
113:
109:
108:
81:
77:
76:
73:
69:
68:
65:
59:
58:
53:
52:Full case name
49:
48:
42:
41:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1799:
1788:
1785:
1783:
1780:
1778:
1775:
1773:
1770:
1768:
1765:
1763:
1760:
1759:
1757:
1735:
1728:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1686:
1681:
1679:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1646:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1613:
1606:
1594:
1590:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1573:
1566:
1559:
1557:
1550:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1528:
1521:
1514:
1512:
1505:
1504:
1500:
1493:
1492:2010 ABCA 251
1489:
1485:
1484:2009 ABQB 591
1481:
1476:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1453:
1450:
1446:
1445:2009 ONCA 526
1442:
1437:
1434:
1421:
1417:
1415:
1407:
1404:
1391:
1387:
1381:
1378:
1374:
1369:
1366:
1363:, p. 21.
1362:
1357:
1354:
1350:
1345:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1329:
1326:
1322:
1317:
1315:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1300:
1297:
1293:
1288:
1286:
1282:
1269:
1265:
1263:
1254:
1251:
1245:
1242:
1236:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1220:
1217:
1211:
1208:
1202:
1199:
1193:
1190:
1184:
1181:
1175:
1172:
1166:
1163:
1159:
1153:
1150:
1144:
1141:
1135:
1132:
1126:
1123:
1117:
1114:
1108:
1105:
1099:
1096:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1074:
1071:
1066:
1059:
1056:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1041:
1032:
1029:
1023:
1020:
1017:ONSC, par. 65
1014:
1011:
1008:ONSC, par. 57
1005:
1002:
999:ONSC, par. 51
996:
993:
990:ONSC, par. 50
987:
984:
980:
976:
975:
969:
966:
963:ONSC, par. 49
960:
957:
954:ONSC, par. 48
951:
948:
944:
940:
936:
931:
928:
924:
919:
917:
913:
909:
904:
901:
895:
887:
883:
882:
875:
872:
868:
864:
863:
856:
853:
849:
848:
843:
839:
838:
832:
829:
825:
821:
817:
813:
812:
807:
803:
802:
796:
793:
789:
785:
781:
776:
773:
769:
765:
759:
756:
753:
747:
744:
737:
732:
729:
726:
722:
719:
715:
711:
708:
704:
700:
699:
698:
696:
692:
688:
681:
677:
673:
668:
665:
662:
659:
656:
655:
654:
652:
644:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
615:
612:
608:
605:
602:
598:
595:
591:
587:
586:
585:
583:
576:
574:
572:
568:
560:
555:
551:
548:
544:
540:
537:
536:
535:
529:
523:
519:
516:
513:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
491:
490:
489:
483:
478:
475:
472:
471:
470:
467:
462:
455:
450:
447:
446:
445:
443:
435:
433:
430:
423:
418:
414:
411:
407:
403:
402:
401:
399:
391:
386:
383:
380:
377:
373:
370:
367:
366:
365:
363:
355:
350:
348:
344:
341:
336:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
309:
306:
304:
299:
297:
292:
288:
283:
281:
276:
274:
269:
264:
262:
258:
254:
253:
244:
240:
235:
233:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
214:
204:
200:
196:
192:
189:Reasons given
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
149:
146:
142:
137:
134:
132:
131:
123:
118:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
82:
80:Prior history
78:
74:
70:
66:
64:
60:
57:
54:
50:
43:
39:
38:
32:
27:
22:
16:
1741:. Retrieved
1734:the original
1724:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1689:
1683:
1677:
1654:
1650:
1644:
1621:
1617:
1611:
1597:. Retrieved
1593:the original
1586:
1582:
1578:
1565:the original
1555:
1541:. Retrieved
1537:the original
1526:
1518:. Field LLP.
1510:
1487:
1479:
1456:
1452:
1440:
1436:
1424:. Retrieved
1420:the original
1413:
1406:
1394:. Retrieved
1390:the original
1380:
1375:, p. 2.
1368:
1356:
1344:
1332:
1328:
1299:
1292:Edmonds 2009
1272:. Retrieved
1268:the original
1261:
1253:
1244:
1239:SCC, par. 79
1235:
1223:
1219:
1214:SCC, par. 78
1210:
1205:SCC, par. 63
1201:
1192:
1187:SCC, par. 62
1183:
1178:SCC, par. 59
1174:
1169:SCC, par. 58
1165:
1157:
1152:
1143:
1138:SCC, par. 50
1134:
1129:SCC, par. 30
1125:
1116:
1107:
1102:SCC, par. 19
1098:
1093:SCC, par. 80
1089:
1077:
1073:
1058:
1050:the original
1039:
1031:
1026:SCC, par. 12
1022:
1013:
1004:
995:
986:
972:
968:
959:
950:
934:
930:
925:, p. 4.
903:
879:
874:
860:
855:
845:
835:
831:
819:
809:
799:
795:
783:
779:
775:
763:
758:
751:
746:
730:
724:
717:
713:
706:
702:
694:
690:
686:
684:
679:
675:
650:
648:
637:
633:
625:
617:
603:
593:
581:
580:
570:
564:
553:
533:
521:
514:
508:
487:
463:
459:
439:
428:
427:
409:
395:
375:
359:
345:
337:
313:
302:
300:
295:
290:
286:
284:
279:
277:
272:
270:
266:
260:
256:
250:
248:
242:
212:
211:
210:
151:
144:
128:
126:
96:
84:
55:
35:
15:
1696:: 135–164.
1661:: 156–165.
1628:: 166–189.
1337:2008 SCC 20
1321:Lublin 2009
1228:2006 SCC 45
878:as held in
867:2002 SCC 18
842:2006 SCC 30
768:2001 SCC 38
716:and basing
621:mitigation.
567:Louis LeBel
542:affliction.
500:terminated.
218:2008 SCC 39
171:Morris Fish
163:Louis LeBel
1756:Categories
1581:: Back to
896:References
629:dismissal.
236:Background
159:Ian Binnie
72:Docket No.
1702:0381-1638
1667:0077-8141
1634:0077-8141
1583:Baxendale
1373:Côté 2008
1349:Veel 2009
1160:, par. 98
674:Award of
653:damages:
626:Baxendale
594:Baxendale
589:dissent).
504:assessed.
496:evidence.
63:Citations
1743:26 April
1599:26 April
1543:26 April
1426:27 April
1416:Damages"
1396:26 April
1274:26 April
610:conduct.
600:claimed.
525:damages.
415:Justice
404:Justice
320:Alliston
194:Majority
1725:Wallace
1717:Wallace
1587:Wallace
1490:,
1482:,
1459:,
1443:,
1414:Wallace
1335:,
1226:,
1158:Wallace
1080:,
937:,
884:,
865:,
840:,
822:,
814:,
786:,
766:,
762:citing
752:Wallace
731:Wallace
725:Wallace
718:Wallace
703:Wallace
676:Wallace
651:Wallace
634:Wallace
571:Wallace
509:Wallace
324:Ontario
303:Wallace
296:Wallace
291:Wallace
287:Wallace
280:Wallace
273:Wallace
257:Wallace
243:Wallace
216:,
120:Holding
99:,
87:,
1727:dead?"
1713:Vorvis
1700:
1665:
1632:
577:Impact
546:terms.
522:Hadley
515:Fidler
112:Ruling
75:31739
1787:Honda
1737:(PDF)
1730:(PDF)
1723:: Is
1721:Keays
1692:(1).
1568:(PDF)
1561:(PDF)
1516:(PDF)
804:
738:Notes
714:Keays
707:Keays
695:Keays
687:Keays
680:Keays
638:Keays
618:Keays
604:Keays
582:Keays
429:Keays
245:bump"
1745:2014
1719:and
1698:ISSN
1663:ISSN
1630:ISSN
1601:2014
1545:2014
1428:2014
1398:2014
1276:2014
410:Code
396:The
360:The
318:in
249:In
1758::
1715:,
1690:67
1688:.
1682:.
1657:.
1655:59
1653:.
1649:.
1624:.
1622:59
1620:.
1616:.
1531:.
1472:^
1311:^
1284:^
1044:.
915:^
322:,
181:,
177:,
173:,
169:,
165:,
161:,
157:,
1747:.
1711:"
1704:.
1680:"
1669:.
1647:"
1636:.
1614:"
1603:.
1589:"
1577:"
1554:"
1547:.
1529:"
1525:"
1509:"
1430:.
1400:.
1351:.
1323:.
1306:.
1294:.
1278:.
1260:"
1042:"
709:.
556:.
294:"
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
