Dav.NonPec

Question 1

Define ‘non-pecuniary damages’.

Answer 1

• damages that are not readily quantified

- pain and suffering beyond compensation for medical care and loss of income

Question 2

Describe the Trilogy ruling.

Answer 2

Supreme Court of Canada established a 100K cap on non-pecuniary damages
(later given an inflation adjustment, and subject to certain exceptions)

Question 3

Describe 4 reasons for caps on general non-pecuniary damages.

Answer 3

1. Awards for non-pecuniary damages are limitless
2. Extravagant awards increase social burden
3. Economic damages will already be fully compensated
4. Ensure predictability & stability of awards

Question 4

Identify 3 exceptions to Trilogy decision (caps removed).

Answer 4

• sexual abuse (S.Y. v F.G.C.)
• defamation (Hill v Church of Scientology, Young v Bella)
• negligence causing financial loss

Question 5

Describe the rational behind Supreme Court’s exceptions to Trilogy cap.

Answer 5

no evidence that these exceptional cases would increase cost of insurance or social burden

Question 6

Describe how the cap affects the level of equity between minor and severe injuries.

Answer 6

• minor injuries are OVER-compensated
• major injuries are UNDER-compensated
  (because past a certain severity, there is no longer a distinction based on severity)

Question 7

Identify 3 relevant cases subsequent to the original Trilogy ruling

Answer 7

• Fenn v City of Peterborough (only case where award exceeded cap)
• Lindal v Lindal (commented on inflation-adjustment)
• ter Neuzen v Korn (cap became rule of law versus just a “judicial policy directive”)