-
1978 trilogy of Supreme Court of Canada decisions
- Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd (paraplegic)
- Teno v. Arnold
- Thornton v. Prince George School District No. 57
-
Reasons to bring consistency in awards for non-pecuniary damages
- non-pecuniary claims are virtually limitless
- damages for non-pecuniary losses are not really compensatory
- plaintiff will be fully compensated for future loss of income and care costs
- exorbitant awards for general damages can lead to an excessive social burden
-
Cases subsequent to the Trilogy
- Fenn v. City of Peterborough: claimed it was exceptional; $125,000 (inflation, more pain)
- Lindal v. Lindal: lowered to $100,000 by BC Court of Appeal and Supreme Court
- ter Neuzen v. Korn (AIDS): Court of Appeal lowered to $100,000; evolved into rule of law
- Lee v. Dawson: awarded $2M in trial, lowered by Court of Appeal
-
Arguments why the cap should not apply
- trilogy states that it's a rough limit, not a strict rule of law
- no skyrocketing of awards occurred
- upper limit precludes juries from keeping up with pace of social, economic changes
- cap inconsistent with modern community values, which are more accepting of disabilities
- rough upper limit disregards importance of juries
- establishment of upper limit constitutes a radical change, not incremental
- cap produces unjust results for plaintiffs whose situations differ from trilogy
- cap is arbitrary and lacks logical foundation
-
Cases to which the cap does not apply
- S.Y. v. F.G.C: sexual assaults
- Hill v. Church of Scientology: defamation
- Young v. Bella: missing footnote tags Appellant as sexual offender, forever changing her future by affecting her reputation in the community, ability to complete education, reducing her income-earning capacity
-
The cap today
- in 2006, Supreme Court of Canada dismissed a plaintiff’s application for Leave of Appeal without reasons
- any discussion is speculation, but suggests that the Supreme Court continues to support the rationale for having a cap on general damages
|
|
