1. One of the most important examples of this trend is liability in tort for pre-contractual misstatements causing financial loss: see Hedley Byrne v. Heller, [1964] A.C. 465.

2. Punitive damages are also described by various courts as exemplary, vindicative, or retributory damages.

3. [1958] O.R. 312 (Ont. C.A.). appeal to S.C.C. withdrawn [1958] O.W.N. 468.

4. Id. at 319.

5. Other frequently cited objects of punitive damages include the following: (1) to ensure compensation for plaintiffs faced with large legal bills, (2) to prevent unjust enrichment when the defendant’s gain from his wrongdoing exceeds the amount necessary to compensate the plaintiff.(3) to provide an incentive for plaintiffs to bring actions vindicating their rights thatotherwise may be prohibitively expensive. (4) to discourage personal retribution.

Punitive damages frequently have been subjected to searchingcriticism. Numerous arguments have been advanced against them: (1) the purpose of the civil law is compensation, and sufficiently serious conduct is a matter for the criminal law, (2) punishment should not be imposed without granting a defendant the safeguards of the criminal law,(3) defendants should not be exposed to civil and criminal liability for the same act, (4) the deterrent value of punitive damages remains unproven, (5) punitive damages are an unwarranted windfall to a plaintiff, (6) awards for intangible losses eliminate the need for non-compensatory damages,(7) defendants are adequately punished by costs. SeeStreet, H., Principles of the Law of Damages (1962)33; Google Scholar Fridman, G., “Punitive Damages in Tort” (1970)48 Can. Bar Rev. 373;Google Scholar Veitch, E., “Punitive Awards in Canada- A Neighbour’s Experience” (1977)55 N.C.L. Rev.181 Google Scholar; Owen, D., “Punitive Damages in Products Liability Litigation” (1975–76)74 Mich. L. Rev.1258;Google Scholar Krasnick, H., “Punitive Damages in Contract” (1978)36 Advocate 11;Google Scholar Miner, M., “The Expanding Availability of Punitive Damages in Contract Actions” (1975)8 Indiana L. Rev. 670;Google Scholar Cooper-Stephenson, K. and Saunders, I., Personal Injury Damages in Canada. (1981)685.Google Scholar

In 1969 the House of Lords in Rookes v. Barnard. [1964] 1 All E.R. 367 restricted the doctrineof punitive damages to three cases: (1) where government servants have acted oppressively, arbitrarily, or unconstitutionally, (2) where the defendant's conduct is calculated to secure a profit for himself which exceeds the compensation payable to the plaintiff, (3) where expresslyauthorized by statute. However. Rookes was not well receivedby British and Commonwealthcourtsand punitive damages remain an established fixture of Canadian tort law.

6. Bridge, M. “ContractualDamages for Intangible Loss: A Comparative Analysis” (1984) 62 Can. Bar Rev. 323 at 365, citing Addis v. Gramophone Company Ltd.. supranote 14 as authority.Google Scholar

7. Treitel, M. The Law of Contract. (6th ed. 1983)705.Google Scholar

8. Sullivan, T. “Punitive Damages in the Law of Contract: The Reality and the Illusion of Legal Change” (1976) 61 Minn. L. Rev. 207 at 223.Google Scholar

9. Denison v. Fawcett, supra, note 3, at 320.

10. See Treitel, The Law of Contract, supra, note 7, at 705.

11. McGregor, H. Mayne and McGregor on Damages. (12th ed. 1961)200.Google Scholar

12. One of the most influential champions of this view was Mr. Justice Holmes. In The Death of Contract. (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1974)Gilmore notes at page 126 that in delivering the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Globe Refining Company v. Landa CottonOil Company(1903), 190 U.S. 540 at 544, Holmes wrote: “If a contract is broken, the measure of damages generally is the same, whatever the cause of the breach.... The motive for the breach commonly is immaterial in an action on the contract”. See also Holmes’ address “The Path of the Law” in Collected Legal Papers (1952), 167.Google Scholar

13. Cooper-Stephenson and Saunders, Personal Injury Damages in Canada, supra, note 5 at 698.

14. [19091 A.C. 488 (H.L.).

15. Id. at 492.

16. (1966)40 A.L.J.R. 124.

17. Id. at 137.

18. [1973] 1 Ail E.R. 71 (C.A.).

19. Id. at 74.

20. Tippet v. International Typographical Union Local 226 (1976) 71 D.L.R. (3d) 146 (B.C.S.C); Newell v. Canadian Pacific Airlines Ltd. (1976) 14 O.R. (2d) 752 (Co. Ct.l; Pilon v. Peugeot Canada Ltd. (1980) 29 O.R. (2d) 711 (Ont. H.C.).

21. Addis v. Gramophone, supranote 14 at 494.

22. Id. at 496.

23. Id. at 497.

24. Id. at 498, Lord Collins cites from Sedgwick’s Damagestext at s. 351 where Sedgwick notes that exemplary damagescan be given in breach of promise to marry cases.

25. Ibid

26. (1884)9S.C.R. 303.

27. Id. at 309.

28. (1924)55 0.L.R. 509.

29. (1960) 20 D.L.R. (2d) 164 (S.C.C.).

30. Id. at 169.

31. (1971) 18 D.L.R. (3d) 90 (N.B.C.A.).

32. (1976) 22 N.B.R. (2d) 364 (N.B.S.C).

33. Id. at 375.

34. Id. at 376.

35. (1978) 16 A.R. 192 (S.C.T.D.).

36. Id. at 196.

37. See Cooper-Stephenson and Saunders, Personal InjuryDamages in Canada, supranote 5 at 692.

38. (1980) 114 D.L.R. (3d) 378 (Ont. H.C.).

39. In support of this conclusion, Galligan J. cited, at 385. from Dignan v. Viceroy Construction Co. Ltd., unreported decision December 18,1979 at 16; summarized at 1 A.C.W.S. (2d) 42.

40. (1981)23 C.P.C. 286 (Ont. H.C.).

41. Id. at 292.

42. [1981] I.L.R. 1–1315 (Ont. H.C.).

43. (1981)32 0.R. (2d) 575 (Ont. H.C.); affd 38 O.R. (2d) 161 (C.A.).

44. Id. at 576.

45. (1981) 136 D.L.R. (3d)49(Ont. H.C.); vard 150 D.L.R. (3d) 729 (C.A.).

46. Id. at 65.

47. Cherniak, E., Morse, J., “Aggravated, Punitive and Exemplary Damages in Canada” (1983) L.S. U.C. Special Lectures. 151 at 184.Google Scholar

48. Support for the old rule is found in Wojcichowski v. Lakeshore Lions Club (1982) 29 C.P.C.269 (M.C.); Mack v. Dresser Indust. Can. Ltd. (1982) 38 O.R. (2d) 765 (M.C.); Ott v. Fleishman(1983) 22 B.L.R. 57 (B.C.S.C); Phillips v. Inco. Ltd. (1983) 39 C.P.C. 67 (M.C.); Attorney-General for Ontario v. Tiberius Productions Inc. (1984) 46 O.R. (2d) 152 (Ont. H.C.); Schwartz v.Children’s Aid Society (1984) 27 Man. R.(2d) 148(Q-B.). The assault on the traditional position has continued apace in Centennial Centre of Science and Technology v. VS Services Ltd. (1982) 40 O.R. (2d) 253 (Ont. H.C.);Edwards v. Harris-Intertype (Canada) Ltd. (1983) 40 O.R. (2d) 558 (Ont. H.C.); Elkind v. Elks Stores Ltd. (1983) 36 C.P.C. 242 (Ont. H.C.) Edwardsv.LawsonPaper Converters Ltd. (1984) 5 C.C.E.L. 99 (Ont. H.C); Wright v. 308489Ontario Incorporated (1984)45 C.P.C. 45 (M.C.): Sheehy v. Hamilton Place Convention Centre (1984) 7 D.L.R. (4th)342 (Ont. H.C); Thompson v. Zurich Insurance Co. (1984) 7 D.L.R. (4th) 664 (Ont. H.C); Makkar v.Corporation of the City of Scarborough (1985) 48 C.P.C. 141 (Ont. H.C); Noranda Mines Ltd. v. SeaboardSurety Co. (1985) 7 C.C.E.L. 227 (Ont. H.C); Royal Bank of Canada v. Keung (1985) 3 C.P.C. (2d) 22 (Dist. Ct.).

49. (1984) 9 D.L.R. (4th) 40 (B.C.C.A.).

50. Idat 57.

51. [1985]5 W.W.R.740 (Man. C.A.).

52. Idat 742.

53. (1986) 37 Man. R. (2d) 111 (C.A.).

54. Idat 112.

55. Ibid.

56. Washington, G., “Damages in Contract at Common Law” (1931) 47 Law Q.Rev. 345.Google Scholar

57. See Sullivan, , “Punitive Damages in the Law ofContract” supra, note 8 at 209.Google Scholar

58. Holdsworth, W.S., A History of English Law, Vol. 1, p. 317.Google Scholar

59. See Washington, G., “Damages in Contract at Common Law,” supra, note 56 at 360.Google Scholar

60. Addis v. Gramophone, supranote 14 at 497, Lord Collins refers to Sedgwick’s Damages text at s. 348 in supporting his view that, historically, juries were given absolute control of the subject of damages.

61. See Washington, G., “Damages in Contract at Common Law,” supra, supra note 56at362.Google Scholar

62. Id. at 363.

63. See “Exemplary Damages in the Law of Torts,” (1956–57) 70 Hart. L. Rev. 517 at 531.Google Scholar

64. (1774)96 E.R.557.

65. Ibid.

66. (1763)98 E.R.489.

67. Id. at 498.

68. (1769)95E.R.. 909.

69. Ibid.

70. Washington, G., “Damages in Contract at Common Law,” supra, note 56 at 365. Google Scholar

71. Idat 366.

72. SeeGrosman, B., and Marcus, S., “New Developments in Wrongful Dismissal Litigation,” (1982)60 Can. Bar Rev. 656 at 670. Google Scholar

73. Posner, R., Economic Analysis of Law (1972) 55.Google Scholar

74. Farnsworth, A., “Legal Remedies for Breach of Contract” (1970)70 Col. L. Rev. 1145 at 1147.Google Scholar

75. Waddams, S., The Law of Damages (1983)576.Google Scholar

76. Swinton, K., “Foreseeability: Where Should the Award of Contract Damages Cease?” in Studies in Contract Law, Reiter and Swan, eds. (1980)62 at 65.Google Scholar

77. Posner, R., Economic Analysis of Law, supra, note 73 at 57.Google Scholar

78. SeeGrosman, B., “New Developments” supra note 72 at 658.Google Scholar

79. (1854)9 Exch. 341.

80. Grosman, B., “New Developments” supra note 72 at 658.Google Scholar

81. Addis v. Gramophone, supra note 14 at 495.

82. (1984) 7 D.L.R. (4th) 342 (Ont. H.C.).

83. Id. at 354, citing Linden, J., in Brown v. Waterloo Regional Board of Commissioners, supra note 45 at 65.Google Scholar

84. (1984) 6 C.C.E.L. 101 (Ont. Co. Ct.).

85. Id. at 110.

86. This award against the individual defendant is unusual because it appears that the only parties to the employment contract were the corporate defendant and the plaintiff. The breach ofcontract therefore was committed by the corporate defendant, and any damages resulting from that breach should have been assessed against it alone.

87. Beatty, D., “Labour isnot a Commodity” supra note 76 at 324.Google Scholar

88. SeeSwinton, K., “Contract Law and the Employment Relationship: The Proper Forum for Reform” supra note 76 at 359.Google Scholar

89. (1984) 46 O.R. (2d) 152 (Ont. H.C.).

90. See a discussion of these cases inSullivan, T., “Punitive Damages,” supra note 8 at 241.Google Scholar

91. (1973) 9 Cal. 3d, 566; 510 P. 2d 1032 (Calif S.C.).

92. SeeSullivan, T., “Punitive Damages,” supra note 8 at 245.Google Scholar

93. (1974) 316 N.E. 2d 381 (Ind. C.A.), modified on other grounds at (1976) 349 N.E. 2d 173.

94. Id.at 384.

95. Ibid.

96. (1976) 72 D.L.R. (3d) 20 (Ont. H.C.).

97. R.S.O. 1970, c. 224.

98. (1967) 423 P. 2d 598 (Mont. S.C.).

99. Jennett v. Federal Insurance Co., supranote 96 at 21.

100. (1984) 7 D.L.R. (4th) 664 (Ont. H.C.).

101. Id. at 665.

102. Id. at 673.

103. Miner, M., “The Expanding Availability of Punitive Damages in Contract Actions,” supra note 5 at 685.Google Scholar

104. Thompson v. Zurich Insurance Co., supra.note 100 at 677.

105. Cherniak, E., “Punitive Damages in Canada: Business Beware,” (1984) 1 Business and Law 30 at 31.Google Scholar

106. Addis v. Gramophone, supra, note 14 at 498, citing from Sedgwick’s Damages.

107. See T. Sullivan, supra note 8 and M. Miner, supra note 5.

108. Miner, M., “The Expanding Availability of Punitive Damages in Contract Actions,” supra, note 5 at 679.Google Scholar

109. Veitch, E., “Punitive Awards in Canada,” supra, note 5 at 185.Google Scholar

110. (1972) 24 D.L.R. (3d) 156 (Alta. C.A.).

111. Id. at 167.

112. (1984) 5 C.C.E.L. 99 (Ont. H.C.).

113. (1984)40O.R. (2d) 253 (Ont. H.C.).

114. Id. at 256.

115. (1965)54 W.W.R. 257 (B.C.C.A.).

116. Id. at 259.

117. (1978)95 D.L.R. (3d) 231 (B.C.C.A.).

118. Id. at 241.

119. Miner, M., “The Expanding Availability of Punitive Damages in Contract Actions,” supra, note 5 at 671.Google Scholar

120. Cooper-Stephenson and Saunders, Personal Injury Damages in Canada, supra, note 5 at 693.

121. Morris, C., “Punitive Damages in Tort Cases,” (1931) 44 Harv. L. Rev. 1173 at 1191.Google Scholar

122. Supra note 35.

123. Brown v. Waterloo Regional Board of Commissioners, supra note 45. at 66.

124. Krasnick, H., “Punitive Damages in Contract,” supra note 5 at 20.Google Scholar

125. Swinton, K., “Foreseeability: Where Should the Award of Contract Damages Cease?,” supranote 76 at87.Google Scholar