Do Not Make A Bad Situation Worse: Court Of Appeal Awards Punitive Damages For Inadequate Safety Practices Following A Workplace Accident

• Published date: 13 July 2021
• Subject Matter: Employment and HR, Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Health & Safety, Trials & Appeals & Compensation, Personal Injury
• Law Firm: WeirFoulds LLP
• Author: Mr Daniel Wong, Max Skrow and Dalal Hjjih, Summer Student

In Eynon v Simplicity Air Ltd,¹ the Ontario Court of Appeal recognized that post-incident conduct in the workplace can expose an employer to additional liability. The Court upheld a jury award of punitive damages against the employer in the amount of $150,000 for the post-incident actions of its supervisors and a workplace culture that fostered "illegal and reprehensible" conduct.

Background

Daniel Eynon was an employee of Simplicity Air Ltd.'s ("Simplicity") who suffered significant injuries at the workplace after being challenged by a colleague to climb a 14-foot-high chain hoist. Mr. Eynon claimed that after the incident, a supervisor arrived at the scene, laughed at him, and refused to look at his injury or call an ambulance. The supervisor took Mr. Eynon to his direct supervisor who proposed to drive him home, but Mr. Eynon insisted on being taken to the hospital. It was alleged that both supervisors encouraged Mr. Eynon to say that the injuries occurred at home, not at work, and neither offered to accompany him inside the hospital.

Mr. Eynon commenced a negligence action against Simplicity and sought damages from the employer for injuries suffered in the workplace. At trial, the jury awarded him general damages and lost wages of $18,750 and $2,250 (after accounting for his contributory negligence). The jury also ordered punitive damages against Simplicity in the amount of $150,000. It concluded that Simplicity played a role in causing or contributing to Mr. Eynon's injuries and that it "demonstrated a serious lack of proper safety training, documentation" and "create[ed] a culture within the company whereby employees failed to place adequate importance on best safety practices."²

Simplicity appealed the jury award of punitive damages.

The Appeal Decision

The employer argued that punitive damages should not have been left with the jury. The Court of Appeal disagreed, and held that the trial judge properly instructed the jury that they could award punitive damages if an employer's wrongful acts toward an employee "were outrageous or reprehensible and offensive to ordinary standards of decent conduct in the community."³ In this case, instructing the employee to falsely report that he was injured at home was sufficient evidence to warrant punitive damages, as the instructions constitute an offence and contravene the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.⁴

The Court of Appeal also held that the trial judge's instructions to the jury provided them with...