Two recent Alberta decisions opine on the importance of
Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, 2008 SCC 39, not,
this time, for the consideration of Wallace damages, as the case is
commonly known for, but rather the distinction between compensatory
and punitive damages and the need to guard against duplication.
Alberta's Court of Appeal recently released its decision in
Pawlett v. Dominion Protection Services Ltd.,
2008 ABCA 369. At trial it was found that Ms. Pawlett had been
constructively dismissed from her employment due to sexual
harassment she suffered at the hands of her supervisor.
The Court of Appeal was not critical of the trial decision on
liability, however, it ultimately reduced the punitive damages
award from $50,000.00 to $5,000.00. After noting that the trial
judge did not have the benefit of the Honda Canada Inc. v.
Keays decision, the Court of Appeal underscored that punitive
damages should only be resorted to in exceptional cases, and must
focus on the Defendant's misconduct, not the Plaintiff's
loss (the purpose of general, compensatory damages). The Court of
Appeal found that in setting Ms. Pawlett's general damages, the
trial judge considered and condemned the conduct of her supervisor.
Such condemnation was again, and more properly, included in the
assessment of punitive damages. In essence the employer was made to
pay twice for the reprehensible conduct of its employee, and the
Court of Appeal reduced the punitive damages award accordingly.
In the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench decision Ahmad
v. Athabasca Tribal Council Ltd., 2008 ABQB 699, a
wrongful dismissal case, the trial judge also cautioned against the
duplication of damages, citing Honda Canada Inc. v.
Keays as instructive:
[...] I will also discuss the need to avoid duplication in
damage awards. Damages for conduct in the manner of dismissal are
compensatory; punitive damages are restricted to advertent wrongful
acts that are so malicious and outrageous that they are deserving
of punishment on their own. This distinction must guide judges in
Throughout 2008, we have witnessed a shift to increasingly
"employer friendly" decisions. Here we have applications
of the Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, which should
help to properly assess damages for conduct sufficiently egregious
or outrageous to warrant an award of punitive damages, and help
avoid duplications of damages assessed for excessive
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Unfortunately, reasonable accommodation for employees in the workplace continues to be the source of significant litigation and even today we continue to see outrageous examples of employers behaving badly.
A former teacher at Bodwell High School has learned a valuable lesson from the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal— it is not discriminatory for an employer to offer child-related benefits to only employees with children.
We are now beginning to see reported cases involving charges and subsequent fines laid against employers for failing to provide information, instruction and supervision to protect a worker from workplace violence.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).