|
Damages - Inflation Increase. Duka Property Management Inc. v. Estrada
In Duka Property Management Inc. v. Estrada (Div Ct, 2026) the Divisional Court partially allowed a multiple defendants' Small Claims Court appeal, that brought against joint and several orders for "$15,000.00 in damages for intrusion upon seclusion, $2,000 for trespass, and $10,000 in punitive damages, this against a "condominium corporation, the management company and the security company".
Here the court considered increasing court-fixed damage recommendations for inflation:[63] The trial judge considered the $20,000.00 cap in Jones v. Tsige but adjusted it for inflation:The damages as described by the Court of Appeal are primarily moral or dignitary in nature. They capped such damages at $20,000 in Jones, with most awards, I am told, falling in the $2,500-to-$7,000 range, depending on the nature of the invasion and the emotional impact. If there is an abuse of authority or intrusion into deeply personal spaces, the upper range of 10 to $15,000 might be justified.
Jones v. Tsige is a 2012 decision. Adjusting for inflation, counsel at trial advised me that the current range would be $26,000 to $27,000. The plaintiff provided no medical reports or hospital records to demonstrate the mental or physical impact of the circumstances related to this claim. The plaintiff did give evidence of the extreme distress and mental anguish this incident caused him. The plaintiff was certainly grieving the loss of his intended spouse. The incident of the suicide occurred some 46 days – pardon me, this incident, rather, occurred some 46 days after his fiancée’s suicide. Undoubtedly, the incident exacerbated and prolonged the grieving process and had a profound emotional impact on the plaintiff. As I said, in the present case, I find the damages of $15,000 are warranted.[1] [64] The appellants submit that the trial judge erred in adjusting the range in Jones for inflation, relying on Cariboo Press (1969) Ltd. v. O’Connor, [1996] B.C.J. No. 675 (C.A.), at para. 27, where the court stated that “the ravages of inflation on earlier nominal awards should not be recognized when one is considering a symbolic award.” The court cited S. Waddams, The Law of Damages, (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 1991). The most recent edition of that text discusses and disapproves of inflation adjustments of damage awards between the date of the wrong and the date of the judgment: S. Waddams and P. Healy, Law of Damages (Toronto: Thomson Reuters Canada, 2020), at § 7.2. It does not discuss the type of inflation adjustment at issue in this case.
[65] In any event, Cariboo Press is not binding on this court and far more recent Ontario authority does not support the appellants’ position. In E.L.R. v. D.M.S., 2026 ONSC 914, 27 R.F.L. (9th) 303, at para. 151, the court stated: “The limits of the general damages found by Sharpe J.A. in Jones v. Tsige have been eroded by inflation since that case was decided in 2012.
|
