Can Punitive Damages Be Discharged In Bankruptcy?

While most debts can be discharged through bankruptcy in Canada, punitive damages are generally treated as an exception and are not dischargeable under Section 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

Punitive damages punish a defendant for outrageous conduct and deter similar conduct in the future, but not to put them out of business.

Whether punitive damages are dischargeable in bankruptcy in Canada depends on the nature of the conduct that led to the punitive damages award. Bankruptcy aims to provide an honest debtor with a fresh start, but there are exceptions for certain types of debts.

Under Section 178(1)(a)(i) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA), debts arising from “fraudulent or reckless disregard for the rights of creditors” are excluded from discharge in Canada. This section is similar to the concept of “willful and malicious injury” that prevents the discharge of certain debts in U.S. bankruptcy law.

Punitive damages that are awarded for intentional wrongdoing or awful acts, are generally non-dischargeable if the conduct meets the fraud, reckless disregard, or willful/malicious injury. Canadian bankruptcy laws differentiate between intentional and unintentional breaches. Courts evaluate the circumstances to determine eligibility for debt discharge.

Simply being awarded punitive damages does not automatically mean the debt is non-dischargeable, according to cases like In re Jacobs. Punitive damages are only awarded in exceptional cases where the defendant’s actions are so horrific and offensive that they outrage the court’s sense of decency.

Punitive damages are monetary awards executed by courts to primarily punish defendants for horrifying misconduct and deter similar behavior in the future. Unlike compensatory damages, punitive damages are a form of punishment and send a strong message of condemnation.

Bankruptcy is a legal process that provides debt relief to individuals or businesses overwhelmed by financial obligations they cannot reasonably repay. In Canada, filing for bankruptcy, typically under Chapter 7, can discharge most debts incurred through regular business transactions or personal expenses, allowing for a fresh financial start.

Why Punitive Damages Aren’t Discharged in Bankruptcy?

Here are the specific public policy considerations that support the non-dischargeability of punitive damages in bankruptcy:

  1. To Deter Awful Misconduct – Punitive damages serve as a powerful deterrent against willful and malicious conduct that causes significant harm. Allowing debtors to easily discharge such penalties through bankruptcy would undermine this deterrent effect and potentially embolden future bad actors.
  2. Promote Accountability – There is a strong public interest in holding individuals fully accountable, both legally and financially, for intentional wrongdoing. Discharging punitive damages could convey that bankruptcy provides an escape from meaningful accountability for egregious misconduct.
  3. Victim Compensation – Punitive damages provide a means for making victims whole beyond mere economic losses when they suffer reprehensible mistreatment. Denying discharge maintains this avenue for compensation and recognition of additional harm.
  4. To Keep Notions of Justice – The concept of justice is predicated on ensuring appropriate consequences for blameworthy acts. Allowing discharge could be viewed as an unjust windfall clashing with society’s sense of fairness and proportionality in punishment.
  5. To Avoid Abuse of System – There are concerns that if punitive damages were freely dischargeable, unscrupulous parties may pursue them more liberally expecting bankruptcy as an escape hatch. Non-dischargeability helps safeguard against potential overreach.

Dischargeability of Debts in Bankruptcy

In Canada, the majority of debts incurred through regular business transactions or personal expenses are eligible for discharge through bankruptcy proceedings, typically under Chapter 7. This includes credit card debts, medical bills, personal loans, and other unsecured debts.

The primary purpose of bankruptcy is to provide individuals or businesses with a fresh financial start by relieving them of overwhelming debt burdens. By discharging eligible debts, bankruptcy offers a path to financial recovery and a chance to rebuild credit and financial stability.

Criteria to determine the dischargeability of punitive damages in bankruptcy

There are specific criteria or standards used by Canadian courts to determine the dischargeability of punitive damages in bankruptcy cases. Courts undertake a rigorous assessment to determine whether the conduct underlying a punitive damages award meets this high verge.

Here are the key factors courts closely examine:

  1. Severity of the misconduct – Extremely egregious acts that sparked the punitive damages are more prone to be viewed as intentional fraud or deceit, militating against dischargeability.
  2. Debtor’s criminal intent – Did the bankrupt act with a deliberate and conscious intention to deceive, mislead or cause harm? Such manifest intent to mislead strongly indicates non-dischargeability.
  3. Reckless disregard – Even absent outright fraudulent intent, reckless conduct exhibiting a disregard for truth or the consequences of misleading actions can trigger the exception.

Exception in Punitive Damages

There’s an important exception, punitive damages are generally not dischargeable in bankruptcy. This is outlined in Section 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) in Canada.

Why Are Punitive Damages Different?

Punitive damages differ fundamentally from regular compensatory damages awarded in lawsuits. Regular damages aim to compensate the plaintiff for their actual losses. Punitive damages, however, serve a different purpose entirely. They are awarded by the court to:

  1. Punish the defendant for egregious, reprehensible misconduct.
  2. Deter the defendant from repeating the same egregious behavior in the future.
  3. Send a strong message that the court views the defendant’s actions as highly unacceptable.

Reasoning behind Exception of Punitive Damages

Since punitive damages are intended to punish the debtor for intentional wrongdoing and deter similar future conduct, allowing them to be discharged in bankruptcy would undermine these purposes and important public policy considerations. The law seeks to ensure that individuals are held accountable for their egregious actions, even if they declare bankruptcy.

Exceptions to Rule of Non-Dischargeability of Punitive Damage

Here are a few exceptions to rule of Non-Dischargeability of Punitive Damage:

1.     Willful and Malicious Injury” Exception May Apply if Intent to Cause Harm

The “willful and malicious injury” exception to discharge in bankruptcy cases sets a high bar for creditors. To prevent a debt from being discharged under this exception, the creditor must prove that the debtor’s actions leading to the injury were both willful and malicious.

The willfulness requirement means the debtor must have acted deliberately and intentionally, with knowledge that harm was likely to result. However, this alone is insufficient. The maliciousness standard goes further, necessitating that the debtor acted with specific wrongful intent or a wanton disregard for the consequences of their conduct.

Case Study

In the case of TKC Aerospace Inc. v. Muhs, the court examined the “willful and malicious injury” exception to the non-dischargeability of debts in bankruptcy. This case involved an employee (Muhs) who misappropriated trade secrets from his former employer (TKC Aerospace) and used them to benefit a competitor, resulting in punitive damages being awarded against him.

Muhs subsequently filed for bankruptcy and sought to discharge the punitive damages debt. The key issue was whether his actions constituted a “willful and malicious injury” under the Bankruptcy Code, which would render the debt non-dischargeable.

The court ultimately ruled in favor of Muhs, and allowed him to discharge the debt, including the punitive damages. The court found that the previous court awarding punitive damages had not clearly determined whether Muhs intended to injure his former employer, which is a crucial element for the “willful and malicious injury” exception to apply.

This case highlights the importance of intent in determining the dischargeability of punitive damages in bankruptcy. If the debtor’s actions were motivated by an actual intent to cause harm or injury, rather than mere recklessness or negligence, the debt may be considered non-dischargeable under the “willful and malicious injury” exception. [source]

2.     Punitive Damages from Fraud May Be Non-Dischargeable

Another exception to the general dischargeability of debts in bankruptcy relates to debts obtained through fraudulent means. In the Supreme Court case of Cohen v. DeLa Cruz, the court addressed the issue of dischargeability of debts arising from fraud.

The case involved a landlord (Cohen) who charged rent exceeding the limit set by a local ordinance. Tenants charged Cohen and obtained a court order requiring him to repay the excess rent. Cohen then filed for bankruptcy in an attempt to eliminate this debt.

The tenants argued that the debt should not be dischargeable because it arose from Cohen’s fraudulent act of overcharging rent. The courts agreed with the tenants and ruled that Cohen’s debt was non-dischargeable because it was obtained through fraud.

Significantly, the court’s decision extended to any punitive damages awarded in addition to the actual damages. If the punitive damages stemmed from the same fraudulent conduct, they would also be considered non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.

This case is a reminder that debts obtained through fraudulent means, including any associated punitive damages, may be excepted from discharge in bankruptcy proceedings.

Sources [1] [3]

Real-Life Scenarios for Punitive Damage and Bankruptcy

1.     Business Owner Selling Faulty Products (Likely Not Dischargeable)

Consider a scenario where a business owner is found liable for deliberately selling faulty products that caused injuries to consumers. In such a case, the court may award punitive damages against the business owner as punishment for their reprehensible conduct.

Given the intentional and awful nature of the business owner’s actions, it is doubtful that the punitive damages would be dischargeable in bankruptcy. The deliberate disregard for consumer safety and the intentional sale of faulty products would likely meet the threshold for non-dischargeability under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA).

2.     Employer Liable for Sexual Harassment (Likely Not Dischargeable)

In another real-life scenario, an employee may be awarded punitive damages against their employer for repeated instances of severe sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. In such cases, the employer’s conduct is often believed intentional and reprehensible, warranting punitive damages as a form of punishment and deterrence.

Again, due to the intentional and awful nature of the employer’s misconduct, the punitive damages would likely remain non-dischargeable in bankruptcy proceedings. The law seeks to hold employers accountable for intentional and severe violations of employee rights. Allowing the discharge of punitive damages in such cases would challenge this objective.

3.     Drunk Driving Accident (Depends on Intent – Malicious vs. Reckless)

In a scenario involving a drunk driving accident, where the driver is ordered to pay punitive damages to another party, the dischargeability of the punitive damages in bankruptcy may depend on whether the court views the driver’s actions as intentionally malicious or merely reckless.

If the court determines that the drunk driver acted with an actual intent to cause harm or injury, the punitive damages may be considered non-dischargeable under the “willful and malicious injury” exception. However, if the court views the driver’s actions as reckless or negligent, without a specific intent to cause harm, the punitive damages may potentially be dischargeable in bankruptcy.

This scenario highlights the importance of assessing the debtor’s intent and the underlying nature of their misconduct when determining the dischargeability of punitive damages in bankruptcy proceedings.

Importance of Legal Advice

As shown by the various scenarios and case studies, bankruptcy laws can be complex, and the distinctions of specific cases are important to determine the dischargeability of punitive damages. The underlying conduct, the debtor’s intent, and the court’s interpretation of the circumstances can significantly impact the outcome.

It is essential to consult a qualified bankruptcy lawyer for specific advice if you are facing punitive damages awards and considering bankruptcy as an option.

Scroll to Top