Sentences with phrase «aggravated damages from»

Having heard argument the judge withdrew the question of aggravated damages from the jury.

And in another case, an appeal court cut the aggravated damages from $ 450,000 to $ 45,000.

As a result, the entire northern portion of Honshu, Japan's largest island, moved about 1 meter toward the east, with one site near the temblor's epicentre sliding 5.4 meters horizontally and sinking 1.1 meters — a sudden subsidence that aggravated the damage from the tsunami that slammed the shore minutes later.

Not exact matches

The following items were taken from Orland Park police reports: Orland Park An 18 - year - old Orland Park man is charged with battery, and two younger teens have been petitioned into juvenile court for aggravated battery after an attack on an Orland Park teen suspected of damaging the 18 - year - old's sister's car.

It is absent from the most recent edition of Black's law dictionary, and it generated but one result in a CanLII search — a passing but telling reference in the Awan v. Levant, 2014 ONSC 6890, a decision from November 2014 where Ezra Levant was ordered to pay general and aggravated damages for libel totaling $ 80,000.

In certain cases, where there has been a significant departure from the standards of good faith, you may be entitled to an award of aggravated or punitive damages.

I will call the new and unified approach to damages for mental distress and the conduct of dismissal, emanating from this decision, as «Keays damages» — which will replace the former Wallace damages and aggravated damages.

Justice Bourgeois awarded $ 30,000 in general damages for mental distress and $ 150,000 in aggravated damages, noting the impacts of National Life's bad faith had extended from its suspension of rehabilitation benefits to the week before trial when it had disclosed the IME.

Citing principles from Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., 1997 CanLII 332 (SCC) and Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, 2008 SCC 39 (CanLII), the Court of Appeal found that, to receive aggravated damages based on mental distress, an employee is required to demonstrate the manner of dismissal caused injury rising beyond the «normal distress» and «hurt feelings» which ordinarily accompany a dismissal for cause.

Punitive damages were distinguished from aggravated damages by the Court in Vorvis v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia2 as follows:

[22] Considering and weighing all the evidence, the trauma that the plaintiff experienced, the permanent damage to his eye which causes him to suffer on occasion from double vision and is suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder («PTSD») and is at an increased risk of anxiety and depresic disorder, I am satisfied that an appropriate award including aggravated damages is the sum of $ 50,000.

Aggravated damages: Awarded to compensate for intangible injuries, such as mental distress or where it can be shown that there was a wrong committed that was separate from the dismissal itself and aggravated the employee's harm asAggravated damages: Awarded to compensate for intangible injuries, such as mental distress or where it can be shown that there was a wrong committed that was separate from the dismissal itself and aggravated the employee's harm asaggravated the employee's harm as a result.

In Kopey v. Brown (South Bend Division, 3:11 CV 477), the insurance company argued that because the plaintiff had injuries from a prior accident, that they could not collect damages from a subsequent accident that may have aggravated those prior injuries.

The trial judge found no bad faith on the part of the insurer, but awarded Ms. Fidler aggravated damages of $ 20,000 for mental distress resulting from Sun Life's breach of the group disability contract.

Both appellants (Austin and Saxby) claimed damages for distress and also aggravated and exemplary damages, at common law in the tort of false imprisonment and under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 7 for alleged unlawful detention, contrary to their Art 5 Convention rights, essentially arguing that they should have been released from the police cordon much earlier than they were.

Consequently, while the traditional factors to be considered in determining general damages for defamation remain relevant (for instance, the plaintiff's conduct, position and standing, the nature and seriousness of the defamatory statements, the mode and extent of publication, the absence or refusal of any apology or retraction, the whole conduct and motive of the defendant from publication through judgment, and any evidence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances), they must be examined in light of the internet context of the offending conduct.

That's because with aggravated damages, the victim is em - powered to seek or not seek such damages; Type II errors are more likely, since the victim - vindication model doesn't purport to restrict the plaintiff from either forbearing from seek - ing punitive damages or to settle at an amount lower than what is necessary to signal to the defendant to forbear from such misconduct in the future.

These aggravated damages would go to the plaintiff as compensation for uncompensated dignity harms (separate and apart from pain and suffering).

No significant analysis is provided to explain the departure from the established range for the aggravated damages.

[117] Unlike my colleague, I am strongly of the view that from the charge as a whole, the jury would reasonably have understood that they were to take [the manager]'s conduct into account in assessing aggravated or mental distress damages against [the employer], whether or not they awarded damages against [the manager] for intentionally inflicting mental stress on [the employee].

The judgment deals with this argument by citing the decisions in Zaiwalla & Co v Walia [2002] IRLR 697, [2002] All ER (D) 103 (Aug) and Governing Body of St Andrew's Primary School v Blundell [2010] UKEAT / 330/09, [2010] All ER (D) 68 (Oct), in each of which aggravated damages reflected the abusive way in which the employer had defended the subsequent legal proceedings; from this it was extrapolated that there can be consideration of post-termination conduct generally, provided that it is causally linked to the original discrimination.