B Block Human Geography - Today we'll start with a look at the Kurds. For the Kurds and Kurdistan a good primer is this GPS video from CNN with Fareed Zakaria as well as this article form the Economist or this article from Foreign Policy or the website "The Kurdish Project" following videos help too:
This should help you with the question from your Ethnicity package
- Discuss some of the issues that the Kurds suffer from.
You also have the block to work on your India/Pakistan questions
- When the British ended colonial control of South Asia in 1947, how was the region divided politically, and how was the region divided ethnically (religiously)?
- How many people found themselves on the “wrong side of the boundary” in the 1940s?
- How many Muslims migrated from India to West Pakistan (Pakistan, today)?
- How many Muslims migrated to East Pakistan (Bangladesh, today)?
- How many Hindus migrated from East and West Pakistan into India?
- What happened to many of the refugees as they traveled?
- Why is the region of Kashmir a problem?
And your Sri Lanka question
- Complete the chart that compares the two ethnicities of Sri Lanka in terms of language and religion
Look at the videos and links on yesterday's blog to help.
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.
D/C Blocks Social and Environmental Sciences - Today we start in the Learning Commons / Library for your research project. Here is a list of topics that we have from you so far:
Kim - Mount Washington and Water Conservation/Use
Shermane - Vancouver Island Marmot Recovery Foundation
Mary - Sunnyside Golf and Water Conservation/Use
Justin - Courtenay Fish & Game Protective Association
Jakob - Vanier Cafe and food waste
Sierra - Grocery store food waste
Tari - Electronic Vehicle sales and recharging infrastructure
Javin - MOSAIC - private timber licenses
Riley - Mountainaire Avian Rescue Society (MARS)
Teagan - 3L Development and Comox Valley Regional District
Hayden - Black Tail Deer Management (wildlife conservation)
Paula - Cumberland Forest Society
Rylan - Local Refillery
Taylor - Grieg Finfish farming
Simon - Trent River and restoration
Pfeifer - Village of Cumberland (planning)
Olivia - Morrison Creek Streamkeepers
Aidan - Comox Strathcona Waste Management
Quoc - Kus Kus Um
Judah - Hornby Island tourism
Taylor - Comox Valley SPCA
Carter - Hakai and Solar Energy generation
Aidan - Comox Strathcona Regional District Waste Management
Liam -
Remember you're looking at groups who are trying to solve an environmental issue. Consider the following questions:
1. Which do you think is the best way to address this issue in your community, community action or public policy
2. What are the advantages of this solution? What are the disadvantages? You will need to be able to address the disadvantages, as well.
3. List some influential individuals or groups who might be willing to support your proposal.
4. How might you be able to win the support of some of these individuals or groups?
Last block, with Benton in 145, you'll continue your look at mountains, identifying the changes in plant life vertically focusing on Mt. Arrowsmith.
From TVO:
Biosphere Reserves are a way to think about nature that includes people as part of the environment. Industry, landowners, residents, and First Nations are all stakeholders in a Biosphere Reserve. Here, the environment is only healthy if human communities and the ecosystems that sustain them are both thriving.
Today's Fit...
No comments:
Post a Comment