 Out of pocket expenses of the victim: ie. ambulance, hospital costs, etc.  Repairs to auto  Medical expenses : ie. therapy  Lost wages : between accident & trial province-owes-compensation-for-damages-to-property,-land-in-precedent-setting- case/1

 Pain and suffering – mental/physical/ emotional  Disability & disfigurement  Loss of earning power – potential athletes/ children

 Pecuniary ($) damages : loss of income and future earnings and the cost of specialized future care (professional help, special equipment, access to facilities, and medication necessary to assist daily life)  Non-pecuniary damage- for pain and suffering and for loss of enjoyment of life (difficult to put a price to enjoyment, someone who can no longer skate or ski able to enjoy a winter vacation of a different kind)  Supreme Court of Canada set a limit of $100,000 (in 1978, due to inflation that cap is now set at $350,000 ) for most cases (main difference between US and Canada Tort liability systems)

 Punish offenders for their oppressive, insensitive, or malicious behaviour  Meant to condemn this conduct & discourage others from behaving in a similar manner. Aggravated  Similar to Punitive, awarded when defendant’s behaviour harms the plaintiff.  Aggravated is intended to compensate the plaintiff for the defendant’s intolerable conduct (knowingly)

Honda Canada vs. Keays at the SCC (2005)  In 2000, the SCC reformed the law as it pertains to damages that employees could be awarded based on the manner of their dismissal from their employer (aka “Wallace” damages)  The court indicated that an employer’s bad faith at time of dismissal could be compensated by way of an extension of the notice period.  Keays was a 14-year employee of Honda Canada who developed Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.  As part of Honda Canada’s disability program, Keays was required to produce medical documentation to explain his absences.  When Keays refused to meet with an occupational medical specialist in order determine how his medical condition could be accommodated, his employment was terminated.  At trial, in addition to an award of 15 months of notice, Keays was awarded an additional 9 months for “Wallace” damages, as well as $500,000 in punitive damages. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the “Wallace” damages but reduced the award of punitive damages to $100,000

 Awards a small amount ($1-$100) for violation of legal right  Represent a moral victory for the plaintiff, they have suffered little or no harm. Example : trespassing but does not damage anything (however showcasing trespassing is not acceptable) /damages-in-civil-claims-2

 To punish, condemn, deter, make an example of the wrongdoer

Victims get $32,000 in poisoned food case VICTORIA (CP) – A mother and two sons who suffered food poisoning three years ago after eating a barbecued chicken, bought at a suburban Sidney grocery store, have been awarded more than $32,000 in damages. The B.C. Supreme Court award is fair, Henny Watts said, but she wouldn’t want to go through the salmonella hadar poisoning again for any amount of money. “I would not wish it on anyone – it was a lot worse than major surgery,” she said Thursday from her home in Chilliwack, east of Vancouver. Bill Southward, the family’s lawyer, said the award -- $9,500 each for pain and suffering as well as $4,252 for special damages – is one of the few in the province for salmonella poisoning. Watts and her two sons, Joseph and James, then 11 and 12 years old respectively, were stricken after buying a barbecued chicken from Thrift Foods in Sidney on April 21, Four other people also reported becoming sick after eating chicken bought from the store that day. Those people settled claims out of court. After having the ready-to-eat chicken for dinner, Henny Watts and her sons became violently ill. Henny and Joseph Watts were in hospital for 5½ days, where they were fed intravenously and give painkillers. James refused to stay in hospital and was treated at home for the salmonella infection. The family was bedridden for weeks, Justice Randall Wong was told during the two-day trial. Watts said it was not until last year that the family was able to eat chicken again. “It was psychological,” she said. Watts also said she has “absolutely nothing against Thrifty Foods” and continued shopping there after the incident. Thrifty Foods admitted liability in the case. “There was no way we could prove we weren’t liable,” said company president Alex Campbell, adding that after the reports, the store re-examined its procedures. “All our staff were checked by the health department to make sure they were not carrying the bacteria and the premises were also checked,” he said. “We were given a clean bill of health. The method we were using to keep the chicken warm was also deemed to be adequate.”

 What was the claim made by the plaintiff?  They had suffered food poisoning from chicken purchased from a grocery store  What factors helped the plaintiff’s case?  Four other people got ill & settled out of court, they spendt time in the hospital  Why did the defendant settle?  They admitted liability  What were the damages awarded in this case?  $32,000, $9,500 each- pain & suffering, $4,252 for special damages