Skip to Content

Client Update: Nova Scotia Supreme Court awards $500,000 in Punitive Damages in LTD case

In Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc. v. Brine, 2014 NSSC 219, National Life (and later its successor Industrial Alliance) alleged Brine had received undisclosed CPP and Superannuation disability benefits resulting in a substantial overpayment of $99,506.64. Brine had also commenced a human rights complaint against his employer for discrimination on the basis of disability, and received a $300,000 settlement which National Life also claimed via subrogation. By way of Counterclaim, Brine pled the insurer had breached its contractual duties and acted in bad faith. Both parties agreed that Brine remained disabled up to the date of trial.

Clawback or prorate the overpayment?

National Life set-off the overpayment by reducing Brine’s monthly disability payments to $0. Brine submitted based on the wording of the Policy, the retroactive payments should have been prorated over the life of the Policy and not clawed back upfront. Justice Bourgeois noted the Policy did not clearly differentiate between retroactive versus future lump sum income payments, and pointed out that National Life had subsequently amended the Policy wording. She held National Life was not entitled to undertake a complete clawback of disability payments, and that the overpayment should have been prorated.

Furthermore, Justice Bourgeois rejected National Life’s argument that Brine was a fiduciary who had misappropriated funds by failing to notify National Life of the overpayment, and found that Brine’s bankruptcy had wiped out the overpayment.

Breach of the duty of utmost good faith

Justice Bourgeois found that National Life’s interpretation of the set-off provision was not unreasonable or arbitrary in light of the wording.

Early in the claim, National Life arranged discretionary rehabilitation services in an effort to return Brine to employment, but discontinued the services because the medical information on file demonstrated Brine was not capable of returning to work. Although Justice Bourgeois agreed that National Life was not obligated to offer rehabilitation services under the Policy, she held that once those services were implemented, National Life could not escape its obligation to manage in good faith the provision of this benefit. Further, National Life had acted on outdated medical information, had not considered the impact of stopping rehabilitation once it had been started, and did not contact Brine to advise such services were ending.

National Life continued to issue T4 slips to Brine which characterized his disability benefits as taxable income despite Tax Court rulings to the contrary. Justice Bourgeois held National Life was required to either implement the Tax Court decisions or meaningfully consider the rulings.

Justice Bourgeois also chastised National Life for failing to disclose an IME (without any explanation) until the week prior to trial and inferred that National Life had purposely withheld the IME to obtain a better bargaining position. Justice Bourgeois further found that neither of National Life’s witnesses was credible. She concluded one of the National Life witnesses during her direct testimony had wantonly disregarded the evidence from its own file that Brine had advised National Life he had applied for CPP and was pursuing the human rights complaint, and had purposely painted Brine in a negative light to reinforce National Life’s position.

The Damages

Brine argued that he should be awarded past and future loss of income because, had rehabilitation services not been discontinued, he would have likely returned to work. Justice Bourgeois found that given Brine’s longstanding illness, she was not certain rehabilitation services would have been successful and declined the claim for loss of income. She also found that because the human rights settlement was characterized primarily as loss of income, National Life was entitled to subrogation. However, since the majority of the settlement was to the benefit of National Life, the subrogation amount awarded to National Life should be net of the legal fees paid by Brine.

Justice Bourgeois ordered National Life pay approximately $62,000 to Brine, representing the overpayment amount which should have been expunged by his bankruptcy. Justice Bourgeois awarded $30,000 in general damages for mental distress and $150,000 in aggravated damages, noting the impacts of National Life’s bad faith had extended from its suspension of rehabilitation benefits to the week before trial when it had disclosed the IME.

In awarding $500,000 in punitive damages, Justice Bourgeois noted there were several aspects of National Life’s conduct deserving of censure. It had grossly mishandled its duty to fairly consider and assess the provision of rehabilitation services, had failed to disclose the IME, had failed to implement the findings of the Tax Court, and one of its witnesses had demonstrated a wanton disregard for the accuracy of her trial testimony.

Lessons Learned

Well-documented communication with an insured and their treatment providers, including appropriate follow-up, is necessary to demonstrate that an insurer is meeting its duty of utmost good faith. Furthermore, decision makers should rely on current information in making decisions, and should notify insureds of their decisions and reasons for same. Once discretionary services like rehabilitation are offered, insurers must apply the same standard of care in discontinuing such services.

Although Stewart McKelvey was not involved in this case, if you would like to discuss the implications of this lengthy 166 page decision in greater detail or would like advice on avoiding bad faith damages, please contact Steve Hutchison, Patricia Mitchell, Michelle Chai or the other members of the Stewart McKelvey Life & Disability Insurance Practice Group.

Archive

Confirming the coverage analysis: Emond v Trillium Mutual Insurance Co.

By Tipper McEwan, Shelley Wood, K.C., and Jennifer Taylor In an important case for property insurers and their counsel, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) recently reviewed the principles of…

Read More

Changes and restrictions to New Brunswick’s Atlantic Immigration Program

BY Chiara Nannucci

By Chiara Nannucci New Brunswick has introduced several updates and restrictions to applications under the Atlantic Immigration Program (“AIP”), effective February 3, 2026. These changes affect employers’ participation, applicants’ eligibility,…

Read More

Canada’s new Defence Industrial Strategy

BY Erin Best (she/her) & Robert Bradley

By Erin Best & Robert Bradley On February 17, 2026, the Government of Canada released its Defence Industrial Strategy (the “Strategy”). This follows a series of announcements highlighting the Government’s…

Read More

Timing is not everything – Alberta Human Rights Tribunal finds that termination during medical leave did not amount to discrimination

BY Jacob Zelman

By Jacob Zelman An employer has succeeded before Alberta’s Human Rights Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) in a case arising from the termination of an employee shortly after he requested medical leave,…

Read More

Outlook for 2026 proxy season

By Andrew V. Burke, Colleen P. Keyes, David F. Slipp and Logan G. Walters With proxy season on the horizon, many public companies are once again preparing their annual disclosure documents and shareholder materials for…

Read More

Key trends to watch in workplace investigations in 2026

BY Sheila Mecking & John Morse

By Sheila Mecking and John Morse Upcoming Webinar: Evolving Practices in Workplace Investigations: Key Insights for 2026Join us on February 19, 2026 at 10:00 AM AST for a forward-looking discussion…

Read More

Lawrence Estate (Part II): How does a mistake affect a contract between heirs?

BY Tipper McEwan

By Tipper McEwan Four children made an agreement shortly after their mother’s death to divide any jointly held asset equally.  What none of them knew at the time was that one…

Read More

Employment law insights from Gbongbor v Multicultural Association of Fredericton

By Clarence Bennett, K.C., ICD.D, Mark Heighton, and Emma-Jean Griffin The recent decision in Gbongbor v Multicultural Association of Fredericton (“Gbongbor”)[1] from the New Brunswick Court of King’s Bench offered…

Read More

Lawrence Estate (Part I): When is a gift a gift?

BY Tipper McEwan

By Tipper McEwan The Nova Scotia Supreme Court recently heard a case that involved a gift from a parent to an adult child in Lawrence Estate v. Lawrence, 2025 NSSC…

Read More

Making 2025 changes real in 2026: A practical guide for employers

BY John Morse & Emma Jean Griffin

By John Morse and Emma Jean Griffin 2025 brought significant changes to Canadian workplace law, with courts and legislators prioritizing fairness, safety, and accountability. Employers now face new obligations around…

Read More

Search Archive