View cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 34 -[73] The threshold issue is whether Capital Pontiac’s conduct in dismissal was sooutrageous that punitive damages are necessary for the purpose of deterrence, denunciationand retribution. In my view, this is not a case which calls for the imposition of punitivedamages. Significant compensatory damages have already been awarded under the headingsof pay in lieu of notice and aggravated damages. These awards are, in my opinion, adequateto achieve the objectives of retribution, deterrence and denunciation.2011 SKQB 318 (CanLII)OTHER ISSUESCosts[74] Mr. Coppola is entitled to his costs of this action to be taxed with the exception that nocosts are awarded relating to the calling of Mr. Lorne Wirth as an expert.[75] As I have previously indicated, Mr. Wirth provided opinion evidence estimating thetotal income lost by Mr. Coppola from the time of his dismissal from Capital Pontiac in 2002until he was able to again earn the same level of income in his new business venture in 2005.I am not aware of any case law emanating from any court in Canada where the damage forthe breach of the obligation to give reasonable notice is calculated in this manner. In addition,while I give little weight to Mr. Wirth’s evidence regarding the loss from the sale of a rentalproperty, the income from which Mr. Coppola used to tide himself over during his careerchange, I am also of the opinion that this is not compensable as part of aggravated damagesunder the Hadley principles as damages reasonably arising from the breach of contract or thatmay have been in contemplation of the parties.