The Federal Court of Appeal Upholds Board Decision to “Punish” the Correctional Service of Canada by Awarding $310,000 for Psychological Harm and Punitive Damages
March 12, 2024
On February 6, 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal (the “Court”) dismissed a judicial review application brought by the Attorney General of Canada (the “AGC”) in Canada (Attorney General) v. Lyons, 2024 FCA 26. In that ruling, the Court found the decision of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board (the “Board”) in Lyons v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada), 2022 FPSLREB 95 was “reasonable” and did not warrant intervention.
As previously reported by our firm, on November 21, 2022, the Board awarded a correctional officer $310,000 for psychological harm and punitive damages after the Correctional Service of Canada (“CSC”) wrongfully terminated her when an inmate falsely accused her of being a drug mule. In their ruling, the Board expressed its shock at the CSC’s decision to terminate the officer without any evidence or providing her the opportunity to respond to the case made against her. While awarding damages, the Board acknowledged the quantum was significant and intentionally made to “punish the [CSC] and to deter any future such deplorable misconduct that was so malicious that if offends the Board’s sense of justice and decency.”[1]
The AGC applied for a judicial review of that decision on the grounds that the Board’s award of aggravated and punitive damages was unreasonable and that it did “not accord with the applicable jurisprudential framework.”[2] In support of their application, the AGC referred to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision of Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18, in which it ruled punitive damages “should be assessed in an amount reasonably proportionate to such factors as the harm caused, the degree of the misconduct, the relative vulnerability of the plaintiff and any advantage or profit gained by the defendant”.[3] The AGC argued the Board misapplied the factors in Whiten and more specifically, failed to consider the proportionality of the punitive damages awarded.
After a close reading of Whiten, the Court found that although the Board did not explicitly refer to the proportionality of the damages award, its reasons were clear as to why the punitive damages were not disproportionate given the circumstances of the case. The Court ruled the argument of the AGC was “unpersuasive”[4] and that the punitive damages awarded by the Board falls within the bounds of rationality outlined in Whiten.
While addressing the standard of review, the Court noted the Board’s decision bears the hallmark of reasonableness in that it was “justified, transparent, and intelligible and falls within the range of acceptable outcomes”.[5]
Given this finding, the Court found there was little merit to the application because “[i]n reality, the [AGC] disagreed with the Board’s decision and has sought to challenge it by putting form over substance.”[6] The Court dismissed the application for judicial review and awarded costs in the all-inclusive amount of $2000.
The correctional officer in these proceedings was represented by Corrine Blanchette, staff representative for the Union of Canadian Correctional Officers and counsel in the case. UCCO is a client of Koskie Glavin Gordon, Koskie Minsky LLP’s affiliated firm in Vancouver.
[1] Lyons v. Deputy Head (Correctional Service of Canada), 2022 FPSLREB 95 at para. 4.
[2] Canada (Attorney General) v. Lyons, 2024 FCA 36 at para. 3 [“Appeal Decision”].
[3] Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18 at para. 94 [“Whiten“].
[4] Appeal Decision, supra note 2 at para 5.
Practice Area
Labour Law
