Friday in June...don't be Patrick Star
C Block Human Geography - Today, we'll continue to look at the Key Issue "Where Is Agriculture Distributed"? this time focusing on developed countries. In developed countries "agribusiness" include mixed crop and livestock; dairying; grain; ranching; Mediterranean; and commercial gardening. Agribusiness is a broad area that includes food production and services related to agribusiness like food processing, packaging, storing, distributing, and retailing. Canada is the 5th largest agricultural exporter in the world, and the agriculture and agri-food industry employs 2.3 million Canadians (that's 1 in 8 jobs)
You have two additional questions to work:
- Why do some regions specialize in “milk products” like cheese and butter rather than fluid milk? Identify some of these important regions.
- What country is the world’s largest producer of dairy products?
D Block Physical Geography - Way to go Kayden!
Today we will continue looking at climates and the connection to biomes and biogeographic realms. Biomes are the major regional groupings of plants and animals discernible at a global scale. The distribution of these biomes is connected to climate, soil, and the physical topography of the earth. Biogeography is the study of the distribution and patterns of plants and animals throughout the biosphere. While you work on your three climate questions I will have the Planet Earth Pole to Pole episode on for you to watch. For more on the biomes covered in the Planet Earth series check out Planet Earth
A Block Legal Studies - Today we'll review damages and look the the caps (limits) to non pecuniary loss . Here is some info to help:
Compensatory Damages - The basis: Compensation in tort law is based on the principle of restitutio in integrum. The Purpose: To restore the Plaintiff, in so far as money can do, to the same position as if no tort had been committed. It entitles Plaintiff to be compensated for their pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses arising from the Defendant’s tort.
Compensatory damages are divided into Special and General damages. Special Damages include: Pre-trial pecuniary losses incurred by Plaintiff which includes lost income, nursing and personal attendant costs, medical expenses and consequential expenses. General Damages include: Future losses resulting from Defendant’s tort. A Plaintiff may be compensated for three heads of damages under general damages: (1) Inability to work; (2) future care cost; and (3) non-pecuniary losses. Each item of damage must be separately considered and compensated for.
This section is adapted from:
The History and Treatment of Damages in Canada
Patricia J. Armstrong
Lindsay LLP
Damages in British Columbia Tort Claims: What You Need to Know
Preszler Law Firm
General Damages - (3) Non-Pecuniary Loss
In contrast to the relative ease with which pecuniary damages can be determined, non-pecuniary damages compensate for those consequences of an injury that, although real, are not so easily quantified. These types of damages tend to relate to a person’s subjective experience of an injury, which, of course, are not accompanied by an invoice or receipt. In Canada, the factors which are analyzed to determine an appropriate award are: 1) the plaintiff’s age, 2) the nature of the injury, 3) the severity and duration of the pain, 4) the level of the disability, and 5) the loss of lifestyle or impairment of life (Stapley v. Hejslet, 2006 BCCA 34 at para. 46).
Perhaps the best-known type of non-pecuniary damages are damages for pain and suffering, which seek to compensate an injured person for having to experience pain as the result of the injury.
Other types of non-pecuniary damages include: Disfigurement; Loss of expectation of life; and Loss of amenities of life.
In fixing the amount of such damages in British Columbia, courts consider past awards in similar cases, considering the type of injury, age of the injured person, and other relevant circumstances (see above).
Limits on Non-Pecuniary Damages in British Columbia
When many people think of “pain and suffering” damages, they think of the extremely high damage awards often made in the United States. But here in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada has long imposed an upper limit on pain and suffering and other non-pecuniary damages.
In the late 1970s, the Supreme Court of Canada decided a trilogy of cases in which it established a cap on non-pecuniary damages. On January 19, 1978, the Supreme Court of Canada tackled this issue head-on by ruling on a trilogy of cases to limit the maximum amount of non-pecuniary damages a plaintiff could receive in a civil action (Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229 (SCC) [Andrews]; Thornton v. School District No. 57 (Prince George) et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 267 (SCC) [Thornton]; and Arnold v. Teno, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287 (SCC) [Arnold]) (the “Trilogy”). As the Court explained (emphasis added):
Note, however, that this upper limit is only available in the worst of injury cases. For example, in two of the cases in which the Court first developed that limit, the plaintiffs were young adults who had become paralyzed from the neck down. In the average B.C. tort claim, plaintiffs should anticipate an award of non-pecuniary damages well below the cap. Non-pecuniary damages were meant to provide a substitute for loss of amenities and to make the plaintiff’s life more bearable. Damages may be awarded in other headings to provide equality in the amount of compensation a plaintiff receives in a negligence case.
In D.S. v. Quesnelle (2019) ONSC, the Ontario Superior Court held that the cap on general damages of $100,000 set by the "trilogy" Supreme Court of Canada cases did not apply to intentional torts.
Non-Compensatory Damages include: Punitive Damages which are appropriate where the Defendant’s misconduct was so malicious, oppressive and highhanded. Their Purpose? Punishment and deterrence. Nominal Damages are small amounts of money awarded when the plaintiff has successfully established a cause of action but has suffered no substantial loss or is unable to prove what that loss is. Their purpose? Vindication of the Plaintiff’s rights and a minor deterrence to the Defendant.
This section is adapted from:
The History and Treatment of Damages in Canada
Patricia J. Armstrong
Lindsay LLP
Generally, punitive damages are imposed in rare circumstances where there has been high-handed, malicious, arbitrary or highly reprehensible misconduct that departs markedly from ordinary standards of decent behaviour. Their purpose is not to compensate the plaintiff, but to give the defendant his or her just dessert (retribution), to deter the defendant and others from similar misconduct in the future (deterrence), and to mark the community’s collective condemnation (denunciation) of what has happened. Currently, the range for punitive damages in Canada is between $50,000 to $1 million. Most cases, however, fall within the $100,000 to $200,000 range (see Clarfield v. Crown Life (2000), 23 C.C.L.I. (3rd) 266 (Ont. S.C.J.), Kogan v. Chubb (2001), 27 C.C.L.I. (3rd) 16 (Ont. S.C.J.), Fidler v. Sunlife, 2004 BCCA 273, Fernandes v. Penncorp Life Insurance Company, 2013 ONSC 1637).
In Canada, aggravated damages are awarded to compensate a party for the mental distress experienced from another party’s misconduct or misbehaviour. Aggravated damages cover intangible injuries such as mental distress, pain, anguish, grief, anxiety, vexation, humiliation, indignation, outrage, wounded pride, damaged self-confidence or self esteem, loss of faith in friends or colleagues, and other similar matters. As no Supreme Court of Canada case has ruled on aggravated damages in bad faith claims, the damages are specific to the provinces and vary in range. In provinces such as British Columbia, the highest award has only been $35,000 (Asselstine v. Manulife, 2005 BCCA 292). On the other hand, a recent 2013 Ontario case awarded $100,000 in aggravated damages on a disability insurance claim (Fernandes v. Penncorp Life Insurance Company, 2013 ONSC 1637). Currently, the typical range for aggravated damages in Canada is $10,000 to $100,000 but most of the awards fall on the lower end of the spectrum.
As the numbers currently stand in Canada, the upper limit for non-pecuniary damages is approximately $360,000. The range for aggravated damages is between $10,000 and $100,000, and the range for punitive damages is between $50,000 and $1 million.
The History and Treatment of Damages in Canada
Patricia J. Armstrong
Lindsay LLP
Damages in British Columbia Tort Claims: What You Need to Know
Preszler Law Firm
General Damages - (3) Non-Pecuniary Loss
In contrast to the relative ease with which pecuniary damages can be determined, non-pecuniary damages compensate for those consequences of an injury that, although real, are not so easily quantified. These types of damages tend to relate to a person’s subjective experience of an injury, which, of course, are not accompanied by an invoice or receipt. In Canada, the factors which are analyzed to determine an appropriate award are: 1) the plaintiff’s age, 2) the nature of the injury, 3) the severity and duration of the pain, 4) the level of the disability, and 5) the loss of lifestyle or impairment of life (Stapley v. Hejslet, 2006 BCCA 34 at para. 46).
Perhaps the best-known type of non-pecuniary damages are damages for pain and suffering, which seek to compensate an injured person for having to experience pain as the result of the injury.
Other types of non-pecuniary damages include: Disfigurement; Loss of expectation of life; and Loss of amenities of life.
In fixing the amount of such damages in British Columbia, courts consider past awards in similar cases, considering the type of injury, age of the injured person, and other relevant circumstances (see above).
Limits on Non-Pecuniary Damages in British Columbia
When many people think of “pain and suffering” damages, they think of the extremely high damage awards often made in the United States. But here in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada has long imposed an upper limit on pain and suffering and other non-pecuniary damages.
In the late 1970s, the Supreme Court of Canada decided a trilogy of cases in which it established a cap on non-pecuniary damages. On January 19, 1978, the Supreme Court of Canada tackled this issue head-on by ruling on a trilogy of cases to limit the maximum amount of non-pecuniary damages a plaintiff could receive in a civil action (Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 229 (SCC) [Andrews]; Thornton v. School District No. 57 (Prince George) et al., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 267 (SCC) [Thornton]; and Arnold v. Teno, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 287 (SCC) [Arnold]) (the “Trilogy”). As the Court explained (emphasis added):
[T]he problem here is qualitatively different from that of pecuniary losses. There is no medium of exchange for happiness. There is no market for expectation of life. The monetary evaluation of non-pecuniary losses is a philosophical and policy exercise more than a legal or logical one.Justice Dickson for the Supreme Court of Canada imposed a conservative upper limit on non-pecuniary damages:
I would adopt as the appropriate award in the case of a young adult quadriplegic like Andrews the amount of [CDN]$100,000. Save in exceptional circumstances, this should be regarded as an upper limit of non-pecuniary loss in cases of this nature (Andrews at p. 21).As a result, the Court established $100,000 as the cap on non-pecuniary damages. However, it later clarified that that amount was subject to inflation. In the 1981 Supreme Court of Canada decision of Lindal v. Lindal ([1981] S.C.J. No. 108 (SCC), it was agreed upon that the $100,000 cap would be adjusted at the rate of inflation to determine the upper limit at the time of trial. Today, the cap is a bit more than $360,000.
Note, however, that this upper limit is only available in the worst of injury cases. For example, in two of the cases in which the Court first developed that limit, the plaintiffs were young adults who had become paralyzed from the neck down. In the average B.C. tort claim, plaintiffs should anticipate an award of non-pecuniary damages well below the cap. Non-pecuniary damages were meant to provide a substitute for loss of amenities and to make the plaintiff’s life more bearable. Damages may be awarded in other headings to provide equality in the amount of compensation a plaintiff receives in a negligence case.
In D.S. v. Quesnelle (2019) ONSC, the Ontario Superior Court held that the cap on general damages of $100,000 set by the "trilogy" Supreme Court of Canada cases did not apply to intentional torts.
Non-Compensatory Damages include: Punitive Damages which are appropriate where the Defendant’s misconduct was so malicious, oppressive and highhanded. Their Purpose? Punishment and deterrence. Nominal Damages are small amounts of money awarded when the plaintiff has successfully established a cause of action but has suffered no substantial loss or is unable to prove what that loss is. Their purpose? Vindication of the Plaintiff’s rights and a minor deterrence to the Defendant.
This section is adapted from:
The History and Treatment of Damages in Canada
Patricia J. Armstrong
Lindsay LLP
Generally, punitive damages are imposed in rare circumstances where there has been high-handed, malicious, arbitrary or highly reprehensible misconduct that departs markedly from ordinary standards of decent behaviour. Their purpose is not to compensate the plaintiff, but to give the defendant his or her just dessert (retribution), to deter the defendant and others from similar misconduct in the future (deterrence), and to mark the community’s collective condemnation (denunciation) of what has happened. Currently, the range for punitive damages in Canada is between $50,000 to $1 million. Most cases, however, fall within the $100,000 to $200,000 range (see Clarfield v. Crown Life (2000), 23 C.C.L.I. (3rd) 266 (Ont. S.C.J.), Kogan v. Chubb (2001), 27 C.C.L.I. (3rd) 16 (Ont. S.C.J.), Fidler v. Sunlife, 2004 BCCA 273, Fernandes v. Penncorp Life Insurance Company, 2013 ONSC 1637).
In Canada, aggravated damages are awarded to compensate a party for the mental distress experienced from another party’s misconduct or misbehaviour. Aggravated damages cover intangible injuries such as mental distress, pain, anguish, grief, anxiety, vexation, humiliation, indignation, outrage, wounded pride, damaged self-confidence or self esteem, loss of faith in friends or colleagues, and other similar matters. As no Supreme Court of Canada case has ruled on aggravated damages in bad faith claims, the damages are specific to the provinces and vary in range. In provinces such as British Columbia, the highest award has only been $35,000 (Asselstine v. Manulife, 2005 BCCA 292). On the other hand, a recent 2013 Ontario case awarded $100,000 in aggravated damages on a disability insurance claim (Fernandes v. Penncorp Life Insurance Company, 2013 ONSC 1637). Currently, the typical range for aggravated damages in Canada is $10,000 to $100,000 but most of the awards fall on the lower end of the spectrum.
As the numbers currently stand in Canada, the upper limit for non-pecuniary damages is approximately $360,000. The range for aggravated damages is between $10,000 and $100,000, and the range for punitive damages is between $50,000 and $1 million.
We'll head to the learning commons after to continue work on our civil litigation assignment.
B Block Criminology - Cindy, Casey, and Caylee Anthony...I want you to try to make sense of the crime (Casey and Caylee Anthony), the media's coverage of the crime (particularly Nancy Grace), feminist perspectives on criminology, the bad mother motif, Schadenfreude, and the way fictional crime media represented the story (Law & Order: Special Victim's Unit).
Remember this crime is relevant in that it represents a massive shift in what crimes are reported, spectacle culture and what is considered "newsworthy", how crime reporting changed with different media platforms, the polarization of society connected to injustice and outrage. Nancy Grace helped to shape a decade’s worth of suspected murderers and rapists in the public imagination, stressing their cruelty and alien coldness, tapping into a cultural enthusiasm for righteous witch hunts and armchair convictions (Lots more on this Monday and then next week with the documentary "15 Minutes of Shame")
This series provides an interesting eye on the topic of the media, true crime, and infamy (episode 2 is titled "Media Frenzy"). Please remember from Media Smarts :
Today we'll watch part 2 and a little bit of part 3 of the retrospective 2017 Investigation Discovery documentary Casey Anthony: An American Murder Mystery
This series provides an interesting eye on the topic of the media, true crime, and infamy (episode 2 is titled "Media Frenzy"). Please remember from Media Smarts :
1. Media are constructions
2. Audiences negotiate meaning
3. Media have commercial implications
4. Media have social and political implications
5. Each medium has a unique aesthetic form
We need to think critically about how and why media are made; examining the impact that media have on us and on society; and reflecting on how we use digital and media tools. So what is true crime, in terms of media, why is it produced? How does it get packaged and then what might coverage of true crime media tell us about North American society?
Today we'll watch part 2 and a little bit of part 3 of the retrospective 2017 Investigation Discovery documentary Casey Anthony: An American Murder Mystery
And after watching some media coverage of the media coverage next week...you'll have a question to answer for me:
Regardless of your opinion of Casey Anthony is it possible for her to escape the negative label of "Tot Mom" and will she ever be able to avoid the horrible mother image presented by CNN and Nancy Grace? Use examples from the Casey Anthony trial to explain your ideas. How does the concept of Schadenfreude apply to the Casey Anthony trial? How would low self-esteem make someone more likely to seek out schadenfreude-filled crime media? Is Social Media (Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat) good or bad for criminal trials and the news/media coverage of them? Use examples from the Casey Anthony trial and from either Monica Lewinsky's story or those in the 15 Minutes of Shame video (Matt Colvin or Emmanuel Cafferty) to explain your ideas
No comments:
Post a Comment