Sentences with phrase «recent punitive damage awards»

Other recent punitive damage awards in employment cases have been lower.

Not exact matches

A recent Supreme Court of British Columbia decision reveals that an award for aggravated and / or punitive damages is not automatic where termination for cause is not justified and upheld by the court.

Alabama juries alone have twice awarded punitive damages of $ 100 million in product liability cases in recent years.

However, those claims that do succeed have resulted in noticeably larger punitive damage awards in recent years.

The decision in Gordon v Altus is another example of the noticeable trend in recent years for courts to award significant punitive damage awards in situations where an employer has acted in a malicious manner in the way in which in deals with its former employees.

One need only compare that against the recent case of Boucher v. Wal - Mart Canada Corp., 2014 ONCA 419 (CanLII), summarized by this blog in the post Wal - Mart Rolls Back Award of Punitive Damages, which must now be considered the high - water mark for aggravated damages for bad behaviour in emplDamages, which must now be considered the high - water mark for aggravated damages for bad behaviour in empldamages for bad behaviour in employment.

Although still far below the multi-million dollar awards occasionally awarded by courts in the United States, there have been several employment law cases in recent years that have awarded the dismissed employees six - figure punitive damage awards in addition to wrongful dismissal damages.

The most significant recent development in punitive damages awards in the context of employment law is the willingness of judges and juries to award significantly higher damage awards than in the past.

In a recent decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal awarded a totally disabled man the sum of $ 236,773 in unpaid long - term disability benefits, $ 200,000 in punitive damages and $ 25,000 in damages -LSB-...]

In recent years the Supreme Court has put restrictions on the size of punitive damages awards and limited the use of awards to punish broader conduct outside the scope of a particular case.

It was highly doubtful that the court would allow an award of $ 1,000,000 to stand given the court's recent decision in Pate Estate v. Galway - Cavendish and Harvey (Township), 2013 ONCA 669, considered by this blog in the post Wrongful Dismissal Damages Carry Punitive Elements: ONCA.

In the world before the Supreme Court's recent Philip Morris decision, the risk of giving the plaintiff — who might only be one of many victims of the defendant's conduct — the entire punitive damages award was that it would more likely undermine the state's in - terest in ensuring a fair distribution of both compensatory and retributive damages for oth - ers, since a crippling retributive damages award might impair the availability of adequate compensation funds (or punitive damages) for future claimants.

[10] Moreover, most American jurisdictions have in recent decades required that punitive damages be awarded only if the plaintiff has proven the defendant's culpable state of mind with «clear and convincing evidence,» rather than the traditional, «preponderance of the evidence» standard.

The decision was viewed as a victory for business — including the real estate industry — which had complained in recent years about escalating jury awards for punitive damages.