<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Damages &#8211; Rogers Partners LLP</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/tag/damages/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2022 18:04:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.19</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Damages for Arm Fracture</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/damages-for-arm-fracture/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=damages-for-arm-fracture</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/damages-for-arm-fracture/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2022 14:03:57 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Damages]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6296</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The decision of Cornwall v. Al Bloushi, 2022 ONSC 6388, involves an undefended trial in a personal injury action. The plaintiff was 69 years old at the time of a slip and fall accident.  She sustained a humerus fracture of her right arm.  Surgery was not performed. The plaintiff has ongoing stiffness of the shoulder.  [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/damages-for-arm-fracture/">Damages for Arm Fracture</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/damages-for-arm-fracture/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Damages for Foot Injury</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/damages-for-foot-injury/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=damages-for-foot-injury</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/damages-for-foot-injury/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2022 16:34:24 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Damages]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6275</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The case of Raskin v. Stepanyan, 2022 ONSC 6247, involves an undefended personal injury trial. The plaintiff was involved in a trip and fall accident.  She was 64 years old at the time of the accident. She sustained a fracture of the fifth metatarsal on the right foot.  She wore a boot-style cast for six [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/damages-for-foot-injury/">Damages for Foot Injury</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/damages-for-foot-injury/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Damages, Nominal Damages, and Costs</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/no-damages-nominal-damages-and-costs/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=no-damages-nominal-damages-and-costs</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/no-damages-nominal-damages-and-costs/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2022 20:26:10 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Damages]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5949</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Erin Crochetière The Ontario Court of Appeal heard the appeal in Pullano v. Hinder, 2022 ONCA 418 regarding an action for battery, and counter-claim in defamation. The plaintiff, Mr. Pullano, was punched in the chest by the defendant, Mr. Hinder. Mr. Hinder’ s employer was also named in the action, and was alleged to [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/no-damages-nominal-damages-and-costs/">No Damages, Nominal Damages, and Costs</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/no-damages-nominal-damages-and-costs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-70/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-70</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-70/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2022 19:36:52 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Damages]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5636</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly firm meeting, Annie Levanaj discussed the recent decision with respect to damages on the plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment in Zarei v. Iran, 2021 ONSC 8569. Background This decision dealt with compensatory and punitive damages sought by the plaintiffs for the shooting down of Ukraine International Airline Flight PS 752 by Iran&#8217;s [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-70/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-70/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Damages in Chronic Pain Trial</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/damages-in-chronic-pain-trial/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=damages-in-chronic-pain-trial</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/damages-in-chronic-pain-trial/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2021 16:09:49 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trials]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Damages]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5521</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>In the recent trial decision of Legree v. Origlieri, 2021 ONSC 7650, the plaintiff was rear-ended in stop and go traffic. The police and ambulance were called to the scene. The plaintiff did not have a significant pre-accident medical history. As a result of the accident, Justice Fowler Byrne found that the plaintiff sustained the following [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/damages-in-chronic-pain-trial/">Damages in Chronic Pain Trial</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/damages-in-chronic-pain-trial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>New High-Water Mark for Loss of Care, Guidance &#038; Companionship Damages</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/new-high-water-mark-for-loss-of-care-guidance-companionship-damages/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=new-high-water-mark-for-loss-of-care-guidance-companionship-damages</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/new-high-water-mark-for-loss-of-care-guidance-companionship-damages/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2021 14:21:54 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Damages]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5124</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Meryl Rodrigues In the recently released decision by the Court of Appeal in Moore v. 7595611 Canada Corp., 2021 ONCA 459, the Court upheld a jury award for damages for loss of care, guidance and companionship (among other heads of damages) awarded to the parents of an adult child killed in a fire. The [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/new-high-water-mark-for-loss-of-care-guidance-companionship-damages/">New High-Water Mark for Loss of Care, Guidance &#038; Companionship Damages</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/new-high-water-mark-for-loss-of-care-guidance-companionship-damages/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-45/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-45</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-45/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2021 13:56:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Damages]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5099</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting,  Athina Ionita discussed the Court of Appeal&#8217;s recent decision in Eynon v. Simplicity Air Ltd., 2021 ONCA 409. This was an interesting appeal from a jury award of punitive damages. The Court of Appeal upheld a $150,000 punitive damage award against the appellant, relating to injuries the respondent suffered in the [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-45/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-45/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Damages in Fatality Claim</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/damages-in-fatality-claim/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=damages-in-fatality-claim</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/damages-in-fatality-claim/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2021 03:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Damages]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=4566</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>The case of Campeau v. Ontario, 2021 ONSC 129, involved a motion for default judgment against the Province of Ontario.&#160;A worker was severely injured during the course of his employment and died approximately 90 minutes after the accident in question.&#160;The claim was advanced against Ontario by his wife, two children, and his estate. Justice Gordon [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/damages-in-fatality-claim/">Damages in Fatality Claim</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/damages-in-fatality-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Charter Breaches Against G20 Protester Lead to $500 in Damages</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/charter-breaches-damages/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=charter-breaches-damages</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/charter-breaches-damages/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2020 17:20:03 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Publications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Damages]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=3518</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Brian Sunohara In a decision released by the Ontario Court of Appeal today, one of the issues was the quantum of damages available to a plaintiff when there is a breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The decision shows that damages are usually minimal. Background In Stewart v. Toronto (Police Services [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/charter-breaches-damages/">Charter Breaches Against G20 Protester Lead to $500 in Damages</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/charter-breaches-damages/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Punitive Damages Award Overturned</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/punitive-damages-overturned/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=punitive-damages-overturned</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/punitive-damages-overturned/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Dec 2019 11:42:24 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Damages]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=2939</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>A decision released by the Court of Appeal yesterday addresses the principles of punitive damages. In Cable Assembly Systems Ltd. v. Barnes, 2019 ONCA 1013, the Court of Appeal noted that punitive damages should only be awarded on an exceptional basis for “malicious, oppressive and high-handed misconduct that offends the court&#8217;s sense of decency&#8221;. Further, punitive [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/punitive-damages-overturned/">Punitive Damages Award Overturned</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/punitive-damages-overturned/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
