TL;DR
- Canada has a cap on pain and suffering damages (also called non-pecuniary damages), established by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1978 through three landmark cases.
- The original cap was $100,000, but it is adjusted for inflation. In Ontario, it was approximately $418,000 as of 2022.
- The cap only applies to pain and suffering compensation, not to other damages such as lost income, future care costs, or medical expenses.
- Even the most catastrophic injuries (such as quadriplegia or severe brain injuries) are generally subject to the cap for pain and suffering damages.
- Courts assess each case individually, considering medical evidence, expert opinions, and the specific impact of the injury on the victim’s life when determining compensation.
Accident victims have the common law right to pursue compensation through the courts for pain and suffering damages when they have been injured due to another’s negligence. In legal terms, this compensation is often called general or non-pecuniary damages because it is not possible to assign a precise monetary value to an individual’s pain or suffering. This principle was established by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1978 through a trilogy of landmark cases.
If you have been involved in an accident, it is essential to consult an experienced accident lawyer promptly. This will help you understand your legal rights and build a strong case to maximize your potential compensation.
Pain and Suffering Claims
It is important to understand that this cap only applies to compensation for pain and suffering, not to other forms of damages such as the cost of future care or lost income, which often make up a large portion of the total award in serious injury cases. The cap amount of $100,000 from 1978 is adjusted for inflation to reflect the amount applicable at the time of trial. For example, in Ontario, the adjusted cap as of 2022 is approximately $418,000.
The cap is generally viewed as the upper limit for the most severely affected claimants. For instance, in Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., the claimant was a 21-year-old quadriplegic, and the Supreme Court affirmed $100,000 as an appropriate maximum for non-pecuniary damages in such cases.
In Arnold v. Teno, the plaintiff was a young child with severe brain injuries and significant physical and mental impairments. She was also subject to the cap. Similarly, in Thornton v. School District No. 57, an 18-year-old quadriplegic’s non-pecuniary damages were reduced to $100,000 by the Supreme Court from a higher trial court award.
They noted:
“There is no medium of exchange for happiness. There is no market for expectation of life. The monetary evaluation of non-pecuniary losses is a philosophical and policy exercise more than a legal or logical one. Awards must be fair and reasonable but will inevitably be arbitrary or conventional. No money can provide true restitution.”
(Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229 at 261)
Pain and Suffering Damages
It is important to understand that this cap only applies to compensation for pain and suffering, not to other forms of damages such as the cost of future care or lost income, which often make up a large portion of the total award in serious injury cases. The cap amount of $100,000 from 1978 is adjusted for inflation to reflect the amount applicable at the time of trial. For example, in Ontario, the adjusted cap as of 2022 is approximately $418,000.
The cap is generally viewed as the upper limit for the most severely affected claimants. For instance, in Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., the claimant was a 21-year-old quadriplegic, and the Supreme Court affirmed $100,000 as an appropriate maximum for non-pecuniary damages in such cases.
It is important to note that the cap amount is considered the appropriate amount to award the most seriously affected claimant in existence i.e. if a young, healthy, and active person is rendered quadriplegic and/or brain damaged would only be entitled to the amount of the cap on account of non-pecuniary damages. In Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229 the claimant was a 21-year-old who was rendered, a quadriplegic. The Supreme Court of Canada stated:
“I would adopt as the appropriate award in the case of a young adult quadriplegic like Andrews the amount of $100,000. Save in exceptional circumstances, this should be regarded as an upper limit of non-pecuniary loss in cases of this nature.”
(Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229 at 261).
In Arnold v. Teno, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287, decided at the same time as the Andrews case, the plaintiff Arnold was a 4 ½-year-old girl who suffered brain injuries with severe physical and mental impairment, but was also ruled to be subject to the cap.
In Thornton v. School Dist. No. 57 (Prince George), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 267, also decided at the same time as the Andrews case, the plaintiff Thornton was 18 years of age at the date of trial. He was rendered a quadriplegic during a physical education class and his injuries left him wholly dependent upon orderly assistance for his day-to-day needs. The British Columbia Court of Appeal approved of the trial judge assessing $200,000.00 (1978 dollars) as compensation for physical and mental pain and suffering, loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, and loss of expectation of life. The Supreme Court of Canada reduced the award under this heading to $100,000.00 for the reasons expressed in the
Pain and Suffering Compensation Assessment
While the cap provides a framework for awards, each case requires a functional and individualized assessment of non-pecuniary damages. Courts consider the plaintiff’s specific circumstances rather than directly comparing injuries to those in the 1978 trilogy. Evidence such as medical records, witness testimony, and expert evaluations play critical roles in proving pain and suffering and supporting compensation claims.
