Barrister and Solicitor
Legal Writing and Research
Damages - Jury Award - Standard of Review
Hansen v. Williams (Ont CA, 2014)
In this personal injury jury case, the Court commented as follows on it's role in the review of the quantum of jury awards for non-pecuniary damages ('pain and suffering'):
 An appellate court is not to interfere with a jury’s damage award unless the award is so plainly unreasonable and unjust as to satisfy the court that no jury reviewing the evidence as a whole and acting judicially could have reached it: McLean v. McCannell, 1937 CanLII 1 (SCC),  S.C.R. 341, at p. 343; Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII), 2002 SCC 33,  2 S.C.R. 235, at para. 30. This is a very high threshold. Appellate courts are not entitled to substitute their own awards in place of jury awards simply because they would have arrived at a different amount: Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, 1995 CanLII 59 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 1130, at para. 158.