Punitive damages in Canada: what the courts require

Most civil claims end with a straightforward question: how much did the plaintiff lose? But in cases involving punitive damages, Canadian courts ask a very different question: how badly did the defendant behave? That shift in focus is what makes punitive damages one of the most powerful, yet least understood, tools in personal injury law.

What are punitive damages in Canadian personal injury law?

Punitive damages are a monetary award that sits entirely apart from what a plaintiff actually lost. They do not compensate for pain, lost income, or medical bills. Instead, they punish the defendant for conduct so extreme that ordinary compensation falls short of addressing it.

The Supreme Court of Canada set the foundational standard of this type of damages in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18. Here, punitive damages are described as awards made in exceptional cases for conduct that is “malicious, oppressive and high-handed” and that “offends the court’s sense of decency.”

The court in Whiten drew on the earlier ruling in Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 SCR 1130, where it is described as “the means by which the jury or judge expresses its outrage at the egregious conduct of the defendant.”

Here’s a video which explains what happens in Whiten, and the court’s decision:

Check out Canadian Lawyer’s Special Report on Canada’s Best Personal Injury Law Firms for a list of the country’s leading personal injury boutiques and firms.

What punitive damages are for

Punitive damages serve three recognised purposes, all of which trace back to an English case from Wilkes v. Wood (1763), Lofft. 1, 98 E.R. 489 (K.B.), as cited in Whiten:

• punishment: ensuring the defendant pays a price proportionate to the harm their behaviour caused
• deterrence: to serve as a warning to the defendant and others against repeating such behaviour
• denunciation: expressing the community’s collective condemnation of what happened

While compensating the plaintiff is not a goal of this type of damages, the plaintiff still gets to keep the punitive award for their benefit, on top of whatever damages they also receive. Canadian courts accept this because the plaintiff, in bringing the misconduct to light, effectively performs a public service. As held in Whiten, overcompensation of a plaintiff is the price society pays for that “socially useful service.”

When punitive damages are available in personal injury cases

In Canadian tort law, punitive damages are available where the defendant’s negligence is so extreme it crosses into wanton or outrageous disregard for the plaintiff’s safety. As such, a finding of ordinary negligence or serious negligence is not enough on its own.

They are also available in breach of contract cases, including insurance disputes, provided there is an “independent actionable wrong.” It is a distinct breach over and above the primary contractual obligation.

In insurance bad faith cases, that wrong is the breach of the insurer’s separate duty to deal with its policyholder fairly and in good faith, as confirmed in Whiten.

Are punitive damages taxable in Canada?

In most personal injury contexts, punitive damages are treated as non-taxable. Unlike income replacement awards, they do not substitute for earnings and are not income from a source under Canadian tax law.

That said, the characterisation of an overall settlement or judgment matters, and practitioners should advise clients to seek independent tax advice in any significant case.

Head over to Canadian Lawyer’s Events page for more in-person lawyer conferences and activities to get insights from legal professionals across the country on various topics.

What is the conduct threshold required for punitive damages?

The high threshold is demanding, and the court has been intentional in making it so. Again, punitive damages apply only where there is a marked departure from ordinary standards of decent behaviour. This standard was extensively tested by the courts since Whiten.

The Whiten factors in assessing conduct

Whiten identified several factors that courts use to assess the blameworthiness of a defendant’s conduct:

• whether the misconduct was planned and deliberate
• the intent and motive of the defendant
• whether the defendant persisted in the conduct over a lengthy period
• whether the defendant concealed or covered up the misconduct
• the defendant’s awareness that what they were doing was wrong
• whether the defendant profited from the misconduct
• whether the interest violated was deeply personal to the plaintiff

At the same time, Whiten itself illustrates where the ceiling sits.

In this case, Pilot Insurance maintained a fabricated arson allegation against Daphne Whiten for over two years, despite its own investigators reporting no evidence of arson. It cut off the family’s rent payments without telling them, and its own legal counsel openly wrote that the goal was to force the Whitens into a disadvantageous settlement.

The Supreme Court upheld the jury’s $1-million punitive award, not because the court itself would have ordered the same amount, but because it fell within the rational limits open to a jury.

The “if, but only if” rule

A court will only add punitive damages if compensatory damages, including any aggravated damages, are insufficient on their own to achieve retribution, deterrence, and denunciation. This is the “if, but only if” test, affirmed in Whiten.

In other words, compensatory damages are assessed first, and if they are enough to serve as a punishment and deterrence, punitive damages should not follow.

More recent decisions confirm this standard. In Browne v. Picart, 2026 ONSC 3308, the court reaffirmed that punitive damages are only appropriate where misconduct “departs to a marked degree from ordinary standards of decent behaviour,” citing Whiten.

How do punitive damages compare to compensatory damages?

These two categories of damages look in completely different directions. While compensatory damages focus on the plaintiff, punitive damages focus on the defendant.

Here are some of the differences between punitive damages and compensatory damages:

Aggravated damages, as compared to punitive and compensatory

Aggravated damages sit between the two. They are still compensatory in nature, addressing the additional harm to a plaintiff’s dignity, feelings, or psychological state caused by the manner in which the wrong was committed. But because they involve the defendant’s conduct, they carry a punitive flavour.

In Galea v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2017 ONSC 245, the court awarded $250,000 in moral and aggravated damages alongside $500,000 in punitive damages against Wal-Mart. It noted that the same factual record can support both heads of damages, so long as the court avoids double-counting. It showed that punitive damages must be calibrated against what the compensatory awards have already achieved in any given case.

Can insurance cover a punitive damages award?

The general principle is that public policy may bar insurance coverage for punitive damages where the underlying conduct was intentional. The logic is that if an insurer absorbs the punitive award, the defendant feels no sting at all, and the deterrence rationale collapses entirely.

What courts said on insurers and punitive damages

In Baker v. Blue Cross Life Insurance Company of Canada, 2023 ONCA 842, the Ontario Court of Appeal underscored why deterrence must be meaningful. The court upheld a $1.5-million punitive damages award against a disability insurer, noting that “deterrence is impossible unless the punishment is meaningful.” The court took judicial notice that for a large corporation, an award below that threshold would barely register with senior management, let alone change behaviour.

The analysis turns on several factors when insurance coverage is in question:

• wording of the policy: as many commercial general liability policies exclude intentional acts
• nature of the conduct: since purely intentional misconduct is more likely to be excluded than reckless conduct
• public policy considerations: as courts weigh whether allowing coverage would undermine the purpose of the punitive award itself

For defendants in personal injury cases, a coverage gap can be significant. If a liability policy excludes punitive damages or intentional acts, and the defendant lacks personal assets to satisfy the award, a plaintiff’s judgment may be difficult to collect. Personal injury lawyers on both sides of the file need to address this question early.

Punitive damages: not a punishment to take lightly

Canadian courts have never been cavalier about punitive damages, and the Whiten framework, now over two decades old and still consistently applied in 2025 and 2026 decisions, keeps that tradition intact. For personal injury lawyers, knowing where its line sits, and how to argue both sides of it, is as important as understanding the compensatory damages framework itself.

Bookmark Canadian Lawyer’s Personal Injury page for more articles, aside from this one which discusses punitive damages in relation to personal injury law.