Are large punitive damages awards in wrongful dismissal coming back? Looking at the trial court’s decision in the case of Pate v. Galway-Cavendish and Harvey (Townships), which is currently under appeal, one wonders.
Mr. Pate was a 9+ year employee at the Townships, who was terminated for cause due to his alleged non-remittance of building permit fees. When he refused to resign (after being given no details of the allegations against him), he was dismissed and the matter was reported to the police. In part due to the allegations against him and the ensuing criminal trial, Mr. Pate’s marriage and his side business with his wife both failed. In addition, he was unable to re-establish a career as a municipal official.
Mr. Pate was subsequently acquitted, and it was determined by the trial judge that the employer had failed to disclose key information to the Crown which would have resulted in no charges having been laid in the first place. The trial judge felt that the employer’s conduct merited relief in the form of a punitive damages award, due to the fact that damages for wrongful dismissal could not adequately address the fact that Mr. Pate’s career was effectively destroyed due to the allegations. However due to the principle of proportionality, the trial judge awarded Mr. Pate only $25,000 in punitive damages. The Ontario Court of Appeal subsequently overturned that decision and ordered that a new trial be conducted with respect to the quantum of punitive damages and another issue.
With reference to the damage caused to Mr. Pate as well as the fact that both the criminal proceedings and the wrongful dismissal trial took years to be dealt with, on the second time around the trial judge took full advantage of the Court of Appeal’s open invitation to punish the employer for its conduct, and increased the punitive damages award from $25,000 to $550,000.
While the matter is under appeal once again and it may be that the $550,000 was excessive, the Court of Appeal’s unusual invitation to the trial judge to reassess punitive damages at a higher amount makes it clear that our province’s highest court is not averse to punishing employers whose conduct is deserving of signficant punishment.
Pate Estate v. Galway-Cavendish and Harvey (Townships), 2011 ONSC 6620 (CanLII)