Talk:Punitive damages

This article could really use some work.

Surely a law prof/student out there can add considerably to this ... LeoTrottier 03:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree, but I also don't think there's much more to be said. It's a somewhat basic legal term, and it is well-defined by this (albeit short) article. I fear that further exposition would rely too heavily on talk of specific cases, whereas I'd prefer, in this case, a more generalized article. -- Kicking222 21:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The grammar is awful. --60.241.92.27 (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do they go to the plantiff?
Why do punative damages go to the plantiff? It seems it would make more sense to award them to the public at large, perhaps by contributing them to the government's general budget or some kind of special fund. I'd be interested to hear the typical legal stances on both sides of this issue. --Mike Schiraldi 22:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a well-known criticism of the civil justice system of the U.S. as it pomotes 'sue culture'. However the UK can also be heavily criticised that in some cases (e.g. Surrey County Council v Bredero Homes [1993] 1 WLR 1361) whereby a calculated breach of obligation can profit in the long run as there are no punitive damages. On the surface, the most just awy would be for punitive damages to be paid to the court - the situation under Scots law. Bamkin 11:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Efficient breach is bad? 69.253.222.184 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

egregiously invidious
From the abstract of this article: "Because they usually compensate the plaintiff in excess of the plaintiff's provable injuries, punitive damages are awarded only in special cases, usually under tort law, where the defendant's conduct was egregiously invidious. "

Egregiously invidious? Surely someone can write this in plainer words.


 * egregious and invidious. Admiral Norton 19:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Non ultra petita?
Are punitive damages also subject to the non ultra petita principle like compensatory damages, or do they constitute an exception from this rule in favour of a public interest in the punitive effect? I.e. can punitive damages be awarded even if the plaintiff only claims compensatory damage?--SiriusB (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed OR
I removed some confused original research suggesting that an account for profits on the spycatcher case was an example of exemplary damages where it isn't. Exemplary is punishing the defendant over and above any loss it has made or profit it has taken. You can't get exemplary damages under a contract (added some material from Addis and the Law commission there); it is not at all uncommon to have an account for profits on a contract (a secret commission by an agent for example). ElectricRay (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Removal of material from Supreme Court of Canada judgment
I've noticed that material from a Supreme Court of Canada judgment was recently removed, on the basis that it was under copyright. I don't think that is correct. The Supreme Court does not have copyright in its reasons for judgment (or does not assert it); see Copyright and Reproduction of Texts on the SCC webpage, explaining that:
 * "The decisions and reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Canada fall within the scope of the Reproduction of Federal Law Order, P.C. 1996-1995, December 19, 1996, 51/97-5. These documents may be reproduced, in whole or in part and by any means, without further permission from the Supreme Court of Canada."

The material quoted was from a judgment, as far as I can tell (not having seen the added text before it was deleted from the article): Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18, so this statement from the SCC would indicate that there is no copyright violation.

The fact that the citation was to CanLII, a non-profit org which reproduces Canadian judgments, does not matter, as CanLII does not acquire copyright by publishing judgments:
 * 4. Subject to the following paragraph and the below conditions pertaining to prohibited use, legal materials published on the CanLII website, such as legislation, decisions and commentary, including editorial enhancements inserted into the documents by CanLII such as hyperlinks and information in headers and footers, can be copied, printed and used by Users free of charge and without any other authorization from CanLII, provided that CanLII is identified as the source of the document.

If I am correct that the deleted material was quotations from the judgment, and attributed to CanLII, I think it should be restored, based on these terms-of-use set out by the SCC and CanLII.

Paging ,

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Edited the above to indicate that I don't know if the terms of the federal order mean that there is no copyright, or that the SCC cannot assert copyright; technical legal issue that I don't know the answer to, but the statement from the SCC is a clear indication of terms-of-use. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The terms and conditions as laid out by the Supreme Court of Canada are found here (not at the Lexum website or at the CanLII website). They state that "you may reproduce the material in whole or in part for non-commercial purposes" and "you may not reproduce material on this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution without prior written permission from the Supreme Court of Canada". Our website does allow commercial reproduction, so it's not compatibly licensed, and we can't host it here. Sorry, — Diannaa (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I have read that page, and I disagree. I think you have to read the entire page together:


 * Commercial Reproduction
 * Unless otherwise specified, you may not reproduce material on this site, in whole or in part, for the purposes of commercial redistribution without prior written permission from the Supreme Court of Canada. To obtain permission to reproduce material on this site for commercial purposes, please contact: reception@scc-csc.ca Attention: Deputy Registrar.


 * It is "otherwise specified" in the very next section on that page:


 * Decisions, Reasons for Decision, Cases in Brief, Bulletins of Proceedings and News Releases
 * The decisions and reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Canada fall within the terms of the Reproduction of Federal Law Order, P.C. 1996-1995, December 19, 1996, SI/97-5, and may be reproduced, in whole or in part and by any means, without charge and without further permission from the Supreme Court of Canada, provided that due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the reproduced materials and that the reproduction is not represented as an official version.


 * This passage summarises an important public policy: the decisions and reasons for decisions of the Supreme Court are publicly available and can be reproduced, without permission.  That is crucial for access to justice and open courts.  The rest of the material on the SCC website is subject to copyright, because it is not related to the core function of the Court, namely declaring the law.


 * Please also see this summary of Crown copyright, issued by the Government of Canada:


 * The Reproduction of Federal Law Order
 * As the result of the Order In Council that was passed in January of 1997, there is no requirement to seek permission to reproduce primary legal information of the Government of Canada and there are no applicable fees. The Reproduction of Federal Law Order applies only to Government of Canada legislation, statutes, regulations, court decisions and tribunal decisions and authorizes anyone, unless otherwise specified, to copy federal legislation, statutes, regulations, court decisions and tribunal decisions without the usual restrictions that govern Crown copyright materials, provided that one is careful to ensure the accuracy of the materials reproduced and that the reproduction is not represented as an official version.


 * I think it's pretty clear, from both the SCC webpage and the Government of Canada webpage, that Crown copyright does not apply to the decisions and reasons for decisions of the SCC. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We have no way of ensuring that "due diligence is exercised in ensuring the accuracy of the reproduced materials" not only here on Wikipedia but also on the many websites where Wikipedia content is inevitably reproduced. The publishers are legally aware people, and if they wanted their content to be public domain they would simply declare it to be public domain. But they don't do that. If you would like to get a second opinion please consider asking one of the people on this list. — Diannaa (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Before I go any further, am I correct in my assumption that the deleted material was extracts from the reasons for judgment in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18 ? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the CopyPatrol report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what was found by the detection service. — Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)