Federal Court - Christian Aboriginal Infrastructure Developments ...

Page: 354
[1336] I am mindful of the reason for the award of punitive damages, that is to punish behaviour
that offends decent society. As well, I acknowledge the guidance in Whiten that an award of
punitive damages must be proportionate to the need for deterrence and that the award must be
reasonable and rational.
2010 FC 495 (CanLII)
[1337] Having regard to these factors, I am satisfied that an award of punitive damages in this case
is warranted but in an amount less than the maximum. I assess those damages in a nominal amount
of $50,000, having regard to my assessment of general compensatory damages for the Plaintiffs’
expectation losses.
[1338] The record is replete with evidence illustrating the high-handed, arbitrary and highly
reprehensible behaviour by servants and agents of the Defendant. I have already identified several
examples of such behaviour.
[1339] The Defendant should be warned against the future repetition of this manner of conduct. At
para. 37 of Whiten, the Supreme Court commented on the purpose of punitive damages, as follows:
Punishment is a legitimate objective not only of the criminal law but
of the civil law as well. Punitive damages serve a need that is not met
either by the pure civil law or the pure criminal law. In the present
case, for example, no one other than the appellant could rationally be
expected to invest legal costs of $320,000 in lengthy proceedings to
establish that on this particular file the insurer had behaved
abominably. Over-compensation of a plaintiff is given in exchange
for this socially useful service.