Damages: Injured Feelings: Maritime Provinces

Nova Scotia

The awards in Nova Scotia were at one time quite low. The cases were few and tended to show damage awards in the range of $3,000. That pattern has changed. The high side award in 2017 was set at $35,000. A case just a few months prior had ordered damages for injured feelings at $15,000, describing this to be within the range of mid-to-upper end.

This was dramatically reversed by a decision in 2019 which awarded $80,000. The lost income claim was discounted by 50% due to extrinsic factors. The damage award was not specifically stated to follow this discount but was narrated to be influenced by these considerations. The liability decision is not reported. The remedy award is here.

The same decision also awarded the spouse, a non-party, a damage award of $25,000. Nova Scotia is the sole jurisdiction to allow for such awards. This issue is reviewed here.

Prince Edward Island

An award of $50,000 ¹ was made by the PEI Human Rights Commission in a complaint which was based on gender discrimination and sexual harassment. The complainant had lost her livelihood as her licence to practice her profession was withheld. The events of adverse treatment took place over an extended time period and her reputation was also damaged by the conduct in question. ²This is certainly an award at the high end of the scale. ³

New Brunswick

Care should be taken in examining the date line of decided cases in New Brunswick.

The law in New Brunswick at one time distinguished between an award of general damages and an award of damages for mental anguish. The latter required a finding of conduct which was reckless or wilful. The tribunal had used as support for this distinction the older Ontario cases which were based on the particular wording of the Ontario statute prior to the amendments in June of 2008.

The award of general damages was described as being undecided as to whether this award also requires a finding of reckless or wilful conduct.

A good example of this reasoning is found in the 2006 decision of Hooper v Dante’s Dance Club in which the applicant demonstrated that she was the victim of sexually offensive language and conduct, which was found not be to be reckless or wilful. An award of general damages was allowed at $5,000 as this case was one which “cried out for remedial action”, as the tribunal referenced the debate as to whether such an award required the reckless finding conclusion.

This very reasoning was considered and rejected in the August 2007 case of S.W.E. v B.K. in which an award of $15,000 was made to the complainant on grounds of sexual harassment. The male applicant woke in the middle of the night to find the respondent performing fellatio upon him. There was no need for the finding of reckless or wilful conduct and indeed no distinction made between general damages and mental anguish as had been the apparent law previously.

An obiter award of $17,500 of general damages was made in a case ⁴in which the tribunal noted factors such as the age of the applicant, that the position was the employee’s dream job, the financial and emotional vulnerability and a thirteen year work history. The claim was dismissed on the merits. ⁵

Similar hypothetical awards were made in A.B. v Brunswick News. The claim was dismissed due to a limitation issue. Presuming proof of liability, based on a mental disability, damage sums were set for various alleged offences of adverse treatment from $2,500 to $15,000.

The sum of $2,000 was awarded in a decision based on marital status, where the applicant provided no evidence of the loss of self-respect. The Board noted the importance of employment in society. ⁶

The sum of $3,000 was awarded in a case based on adverse treatment due to age in the administration of a pension plan.⁷

$2,000 was award to the complainant proving sexual harassment which was based on offensive words and one incident of inappropriate touching. The decision was influenced by the fact that the employer took immediate remedial action once it was aware of the issue. ⁸

The highest award made prior to March of 2024 was $15,000.  By 2024, awards had increased to $40,000 in two arbitral decisions interpreting human rights remedies.

This changed in dramatic fashion in July of 2025 by the decision in Blaney v New Brunswick.

Margaret-Ann Blaney, a former Progressive Conservative MLA, was appointed in 2012 to be President & CEO of Efficiency NB by a five year contract. The Liberal Party took power in 2014. It had been critical of her appointment as one of political patronage. It then passed an Act to Dissolve the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Agency of New Brunswick, by which it eliminated the Agency and her position.

This was followed by her complaint of adverse treatment due to political belief under the human rights statute. The Board found in favour of the complainant. An unprecedented award was made of $230,000 for injured feelings due to the public humiliation and degree of emotional harm.

As to the quantum of damages for injured feelings, the Board noted:

The Board finds that the enactment of the Act to Dissolve was motivated by contempt for Ms. Blaney as a person and employee and demonstrates bad faith and an abuse of power. Ms. Blaney was not treated with dignity, was not afforded the protection of the rule of law, and she was subjected to public miseries because of her political belief and activity. The Province’s actions did not result from forgetfulness or ignorance. They were intentional and designed to remove her legal rights. Those actions contributed to her financial hardship, the ostracization she experienced while attempting to find alternate employment and start a private business in New Brunswick, and her need to relocate to another province

In addition, the decision allowed for payment of lost wages from February 2015 to June 2017 in the sum of $400,000 plus a yet undetermined sum for loss of pension accruals for this period. It also ordered compensation for the capital loss on the sale of her home.

The award was very much influenced by a decision made by an adjudicator interpreting the extent of the remedy under the Public Service Relations Act in Dornan v New Brunswick Health. The Board in this instance ordered $200,000 in aggravated damages. The total award came to some $2 million. This was not a human rights case.

Dr. Dornan was the CEO of New Brunswick’s English language health authority. He was terminated following the death of a patient in the emergency room while waiting for medical care. The adjudicator had found that the conduct of the Province led the public to believe that he was responsible for the patient’s death. The award was upheld on judicial review.

This decision has been the catalyst for an evident upward trend in damage awards in human rights and arbitral cases. It also shows an increased acceptance of more generous Ontario decisions.

Newfoundland & Labrador

In 2018, the tribunal in this jurisdiction made an award of $30,000 for injured feelings to a pastor adversely treated due to his sexual orientation. ⁹ A further sum, parenthetically, was also ordered for a prospective lost income claim of $2,430 and a claim for lost pension benefits of $1,750. A 10% contingent risk discount was applied. He also allowed a claim for the loss of an unpaid leave of $15,000. A further sum was awarded for mitigation expenses which included legal fees, meals, witness fees, cannabis prescriptions, use of vacation to attend hearings and contributions to pension and long term disability benefits in the sum of $6,300. A further sum of $15,000 was allowed for future psychological counseling.

See the summary of awards here.

👤 About the Author •
📚 Human Rights Index •
🎥 YouTube •
⬆️ Back to Top

1.   Reverend Gael Matheson v Presbytery of Prince Edward Island
2. The complainant was a 33 year old minister who was stalked by a member of the congregation. It had a devastating impact upon her life. The Presbytery did nothing to cause this conduct to cease.
3. It should also be noted a past income loss of $425,000 plus a pension sum was also awarded.
4. Downey v Keenan Truck Repairs 
5. The judicial review application failed
6. Tracey v Melanson’s
7. Blair v New Brunswick Human Rights Commission
8.   Steeves v Woody’s Place
9. S.R. v. A Pastoral Charge