Moral Damages — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Moral Damages
When an Ontario employee is terminated, they are typically entitled to notice or pay in lieu of notice. But what happens when the way an employer handles the dismissal is exceptionally unfair, dishonest, or insensitive? This is where moral damages come into play. Moral damages are a distinct category of financial compensation awarded by a court to an employee for the mental distress they suffered due to the employer's bad faith conduct during the termination process. It's crucial to understand that these damages are not for the distress of losing a job itself, which is a normal, albeit difficult, life event. Instead, they compensate for the additional, foreseeable psychological harm caused by the employer’s poor conduct.
The legal foundation for modern moral damages in Canada comes from the Supreme Court case Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays. This decision clarified that to receive moral damages, an employee must prove two things: first, that the employer engaged in conduct during the dismissal that was unfair or in bad faith—such as being untruthful, misleading, or unduly insensitive. Second, the employee must show they suffered mental distress beyond the normal hurt of being fired, and this distress was a foreseeable consequence of the employer's actions. Examples of conduct that can lead to moral damages include making false allegations about the employee's performance, terminating them in a humiliating public manner, or misleading them about their entitlements. Unlike punitive damages, which are meant to punish the employer, moral damages are focused on compensating the employee for their actual suffering. Because every termination is unique, determining whether an employer's conduct warrants moral damages requires a careful look at the specific facts and evidence, often making professional legal guidance invaluable.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between moral damages and severance pay in Ontario?
Severance pay (or termination pay/pay in lieu of notice) compensates you for the loss of your job and the time it should take to find new work. Moral damages are separate and additional compensation for the mental distress caused by your employer's bad faith conduct during the termination process.
How much are moral damages typically worth?
There is no set amount. Awards in Ontario often range from $15,000 to over $50,000, but can be higher or lower. The final figure depends on the severity of the employer's bad faith conduct and the extent of the mental distress it caused the employee.
Do I automatically get moral damages if I was wrongfully dismissed?
No. A wrongful dismissal simply means you were terminated without adequate notice. To get moral damages, you must also prove that your employer acted in bad faith in the manner of your dismissal, causing you foreseeable psychological harm.
What kind of employer behaviour can lead to a moral damages award?
Conduct such as lying about the reason for termination, making unfounded accusations of misconduct, terminating an employee while they are on a protected leave in an insensitive way, or publicly humiliating an employee during their dismissal can all be grounds for a moral damages claim.
Is there a time limit to claim moral damages in Ontario?
Yes. A claim for moral damages is part of a civil lawsuit for wrongful dismissal. In Ontario, you generally have two years from the date of your termination to file a claim under the Limitations Act, 2002.
How are moral damages different from punitive damages?
Moral damages compensate the employee for their mental suffering. Punitive damages are intended to punish the employer for malicious, oppressive, or highly reprehensible conduct and to deter others from similar behaviour. It is possible, though less common, to be awarded both.
When should I consult a lawyer about a potential moral damages claim?
You should speak with an employment lawyer if you believe the way you were fired was intentionally cruel, dishonest, or humiliating, and it caused you significant emotional or psychological distress beyond the normal upset of losing a job.
Common Scenarios
- A senior manager is terminated for 'restructuring' but is escorted out by security in front of her team, and the company later tells clients she was fired for cause.
- An employee on long-term disability leave receives a termination letter filled with insensitive language that questions the legitimacy of their medical condition.
- After 28 years of loyal service, a worker is dismissed and the employer falsely promises a positive reference letter, only to provide a negative one that hinders their job search.
- A retail employee is fired in the middle of the store floor during business hours and is falsely accused of theft in front of customers and colleagues.
- An employer terminates an employee and pressures them into signing a lowball severance offer by threatening to ruin their reputation in the industry if they don't.
What You Should Know
Featured Cases
K. v. OPSEU Pension Trust
2026 ONSC 2092 (CanLII) · 2026-04-10Wrongful Dismissal: Non-Party Discovery for Damages
This is an interlocutory procedural decision in a wrongful dismissal action concerning the granting of leave to examine a non-party under Rule 31.10. The court determined that fairness required the examination to obtain information regarding the defendant's knowledge of employee complaints about harassment and bullying, which were central to the plaintiff's claims for moral and punitive damages. The court also addressed whether a non-disclosure agreement barred the examination and awarded costs to the plaintiff.
M. v. King Ursa Inc.
2025 ONSC 3553 (CanLII) · 2025-06-18Constructive Dismissal: 12 Months Notice Awarded
This case addresses whether a demotion and significant salary reduction upon an employee's return from maternity leave constituted constructive dismissal. The court applied the principles from Farber v. Royal Trust Co. to find that the unilateral changes to the employee's title and pay independently amounted to constructive dismissal. The court awarded damages based on twelve months' reasonable notice, applying the contextual approach from Bardal v. Globe & Mail Ltd., and also awarded moral damages for the employer's insensitive conduct.
T. v. Aurora Hotel Group
2024 ONCA 213 (CanLII) · 2024-03-20Wrongful Dismissal Appeal: Mitigation and Damages Upheld
This is an appeal from a wrongful dismissal trial decision regarding the calculation of damages. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's determination that the employee made reasonable efforts to mitigate losses, the award for lost benefits, and the moral damages awarded for the manner of dismissal.
T. v. Aurora Hotel Group
2023 ONSC 1324 (CanLII) · 2023-02-23Wrongful Dismissal: GM Awarded 7 Months Notice
This wrongful dismissal case involved a senior General Manager with three years of service who was terminated without cause. The court applied the Bardal factors to determine that seven months of reasonable notice was appropriate, rejecting the employer's argument that short tenure reduced the period. Additionally, the court awarded $15,000 in moral damages for the employer's bad faith conduct and 10% of compensation for lost fringe benefits during the notice period.
Pohl v. Hudson’s Bay Company
2022 ONSC 5230 (CanLII) · 2022-09-15Wrongful Dismissal: 28-Year Employee Awarded 24 Months Notice
This wrongful dismissal case involved a plaintiff with 28 years of employment who was terminated without cause. The court awarded 24 months' notice, exceeding the employer's proposed range, while also granting $45,000 in moral damages for the employer's insensitive conduct and $10,000 in punitive damages for statutory breaches. The court rejected the plaintiff's claim for constructive dismissal regarding a temporary pay cut, finding they had condoned the change, and found the plaintiff had adequately mitigated damages despite a six-month delay in job searching.
R. v. The Brick Warehouse LP
2021 ONSC 4822 (CanLII) · 2021-07-09Wrongful Dismissal: 36-Year Employee Awarded 24 Months Notice
This wrongful dismissal case involved a plaintiff with 36 years of service who was terminated without cause. The court fixed the reasonable notice period at 24 months, applying the Bardal factors and considering the impact of COVID-19 on reemployment. The plaintiff was awarded $25,000 in moral damages due to the employer's lack of transparency and delays in statutory payments, and the court applied a constructive trust approach to mitigation.
N. v. IBM Canada Ltd.
2020 ONSC 8004 (CanLII) · 2020-12-21Wrongful Dismissal: Moral Damages & Summary Judgment Procedure
This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning the procedural determination of damages in a wrongful dismissal action. The court addressed whether the remaining issues of damages, including moral damages under the Honda v. Keays framework, could be determined via summary judgment or required a full trial, applying Hryniak v. Mauldin principles. Additionally, the court issued procedural directions to advance the damages determination while a related appeal was pending.
R. v. Keddco MFG. (2011) Ltd.
2019 ONCA 125 (CanLII) · 2019-02-19Wrongful Dismissal: 19 Months Notice & Punitive Damages
This is an appeal from a wrongful dismissal trial decision where the employer alleged cause and counter-claimed for damages. The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's appeal, upholding the trial judge's award of 19 months' reasonable notice, a bonus, $25,000 in moral damages, and $100,000 in punitive damages based on the employer's misconduct during litigation.
Galea v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp.
2017 ONSC 245 (CanLII) · 2017-12-07Wrongful Dismissal: Moral and Punitive Damages for Bad Faith
This wrongful dismissal case addresses the employer's duty of good faith and fair dealing in the manner of dismissal, specifically regarding pre-termination and post-termination conduct. The court found the employer's conduct misleading and unduly insensitive, awarding moral damages for the resulting mental distress and punitive damages for highhanded behavior. Additionally, the court interpreted a Covenant Not to Compete Agreement as a binding employment contract, awarding transition payments and benefits.
B. et al v Over the Rainbow Packaging Services Inc.
2017 ONSC 1143 (CanLII) · 2017-02-17Constructive Dismissal: 24 Months Notice Awarded
This case addresses whether senior employees were constructively dismissed due to harassment, unilateral salary reductions, and demeaning conduct that created intolerable working conditions. The court applied the test for constructive dismissal and reasonable notice, awarding damages for 24 months' notice based on the plaintiffs' seniority and the poor availability of similar employment. Additionally, the court awarded moral damages for the employer's unduly insensitive conduct and addressed claims for unpaid overtime under the Employment Standards Act, 2000.
Doyle v. Zochem Inc.
2017 ONCA 130 (CanLII) · 2017-02-15Doyle v. Zochem: Moral Damages for Insensitive Dismissal
This is an appeal from a wrongful dismissal decision involving an employee terminated without cause. The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed whether moral damages of $60,000 were justified due to the employer's insensitive and misleading conduct, applying the Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays framework. The court also considered the overlap between moral damages and damages under the Human Rights Code for sexual harassment, and awarded substantial indemnity costs against the appellant.
M. v. Vitran
2013 ONSC 6835 (CanLII) · 2013-11-05Constructive Dismissal: 26-Year Employee Reassigned
This constructive dismissal case involves a dock supervisor with 26 years of service who was unilaterally reassigned to a freight analyst role, which he argued constituted a fundamental breach of his employment contract. The court applied the reasonable person standard to determine if the changes were substantial and addressed whether the employee was obligated to mitigate damages by accepting the new position. The case also considered the appropriate notice period based on the Bardal factors, including the employee's age of 53 and limited comparable opportunities, as well as potential moral damages for the manner of dismissal.
C. v. Active Tire & Auto Centre Inc.
2012 ONSC 4309 (CanLII) · 2012-07-24Constructive Dismissal: 33-Year Employee Awarded 24 Months Notice
This constructive dismissal case involved a plaintiff with 33 years of service who was constructively dismissed. The court determined that 24 months' notice was appropriate, applying the Bardal factors based on the plaintiff's age, position, and length of service. The court also addressed mitigation issues, finding the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to seek alternative employment despite limited documentation, and rejected claims for moral damages due to lack of evidence of bad faith.
C. v. BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc.
2011 ONSC 3392 (CanLII) · 2011-06-09Wrongful Dismissal: No Damages for Loss of Clientele
This is a Divisional Court decision regarding a wrongful dismissal claim where the plaintiff sought damages for loss of clientele and moral damages following termination without cause. The court ruled that the plaintiff had no right to working notice and that damages for loss of clientele were not recoverable under a wrongful dismissal claim. Additionally, the court found that amendments to the Statement of Claim introducing these new claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, and that moral damages were unavailable due to a lack of proven bad faith or harm.
C. v. Sears Canada Inc.
2011 ONSC 1850 (CanLII) · 2011-03-23Wrongful Dismissal: Bad Faith & Punitive Damages
This is an interlocutory proceeding concerning a wrongful dismissal claim where the plaintiff alleges the employer terminated employment for just cause without proper basis to avoid statutory and common law obligations. The central issue is whether systemic employer misconduct characterized as bad faith supports claims for punitive and moral damages, and whether evidence of such misconduct affecting other employees is relevant and discoverable. The defendant seeks to strike the pleadings as scandalous or an abuse of process due to the scope of discovery.
A. v. Steve’s Music
2011 ONSC 1480 (CanLII) · 2011-03-08Wrongful Dismissal: 30-Year Employee Awarded 22 Months Notice
This wrongful dismissal case involved a 59-year-old employee with 30 years of service who was terminated without notice. The court rejected the employer's argument that the contract was frustrated by the employee's cancer diagnosis, finding he was capable of performing his duties at the time of dismissal. The court awarded 22 months' salary in lieu of notice, $35,000 in moral damages for bad faith conduct, and $20,000 in punitive damages for statutory breaches, while ruling that long-term disability benefits were not deductible from damages.
Zesta Engineering Ltd. v. C.
2010 ONSC 5810 (CanLII) · 2010-10-21Wrongful Dismissal: 19-Year Employee Bad Faith Damages
This wrongful dismissal case involves an employee with 19 years of service who was terminated without cause. The court addressed the employer's bad faith conduct, including intimidation and interference with employment insurance, to determine entitlement to moral damages. Additionally, the case examined the employee's breach of fiduciary duties through solicitation of customers and misuse of confidential information while still employed.
S. v. W.
2008 CanLII 67908 (ON SC) · 2008-12-15Wrongful Dismissal: 20-Year Employee Awarded 24 Months Notice
A wrongful dismissal case involving a plaintiff who was dismissed without notice after 20 years of service. The court awarded 24 months’ notice and $20,000 in moral damages for the insensitive manner of dismissal and post-termination conduct.