Check out some pain and suffering settlement examples in Ontario, key factors that affect the final amount, and the rules on caps and deductibles
When a crash or injury turns life upside down, the losses are more than just receipts and bills; there is also the huge cost of ongoing emotional distress.
In this article, we will discuss some of the pain and suffering settlement examples in Ontario and show how the courts put a value on the human side of an injury. Lawyers should use this as a guide on how much they should aim for, and also as a tool to help clients set expectations.
Also called non-pecuniary damages or general damages, pain and suffering damages can make up a lot of the compensation that the plaintiff may receive in personal injury cases. Pain and suffering settlements in Ontario cover many situations, and they can arise from the following accidents and cases:
The details may change, but the pattern is similar: a person proves fault, shows how the injury changed their daily life, and the court or insurer puts a value on the nonpecuniary loss alongside the financial losses.
We'll discuss each of these examples below. You can also use the table of contents above to go directly to any of these examples.
Here's a video that briefly explains how pain and suffering damages are assessed by the courts:
Are you a potential client who has come across this page? See the best personal injury lawyers in Ontario on our sister site Lexpert if you have a personal injury case that needs resolution.
Here are some of the laws that you should be wary of when dealing with motor vehicular accidents:
One recent case involving a car crash where general damages were awarded is Graul v. Kansal, 2022 ONSC 1958. Here, Jonathan Graul was awarded $225,000 for pain and suffering for sustaining a mild brain injury with chronic pain and post-concussive impairment.
In this case, the court justified this large amount of pain and suffering damages to Graul's inability to return to his previous social, athletic, and personal tasks, including his professional work.
Malpractices or negligence cases in the medical field is another famous example for pain and suffering settlement and awards, not just in Ontario, but across Canada. A simple example is an operation that goes wrong and needs a second surgery to fix it. In that situation, certain damages can cover different aspects of the case:
The same pattern of general and special damages can apply to cases on:
These claims often involve some of the highest pain and suffering awards, such as the case of Boyd et al. v. Edington et al., 2014 ONSC 1130. In this case, the court awarded her $15 million in total damages when a doctor failed to diagnose that Danielle Boyd was already having a stroke.
Watch this video from Lexpert, one of our sister publications, to learn more about the complexities of medical malpractice cases:
Check out the Special Reports page from Canadian Lawyer, also our sister publication, to see the top-ranking lawyers and firms in specific practice areas.
Another example of pain and suffering settlement and awards are cases of product defects. These claims for defective products may arise when:
The liable party can be the product's owner, manufacturer, or advertiser, depending on where the mistake happened (e.g., in the design, production, or labelling). Here, the plaintiff must prove causation, specifically that:
A recent case in Ontario on product liability claims is Burr v. Tecumseh Products of Canada Limited, 2023 ONCA 135, which involved a heat recovery ventilator designed and manufactured by Venmar Ventilation Inc. While its motor was designed and manufactured by Fasco Products Company, the court held that Venmar is entirely liable for the special and general damages caused to Leroy Burr and Joan Callister.
Damages were awarded in totals of $1,073,739 for subrogated loss and special damages, $60,000 in general damages for non-pecuniary losses, and $800,000 for reduced partial indemnity costs.
Pain and suffering compensation is linked not only to accidents, but also to intentional wrongs and emotional harm. Sexual abuse falls into this group, which is treated as an intentional tort that causes deep psychological injury, along with physical harm.
The law recognizes that the main injury in many of these cases is non-pecuniary, such as trauma, fear, shame, and loss of trust. This is why special damages in these cases may be modest compared to other claims, since there may be no surgery or major property loss involved.
As such, the focus in sexual abuse cases is on general damages, which covers the plaintiff's pain and suffering, mental distress, and loss of enjoyment of life.
In D.S. v. Quesnelle, 2019 ONSC 3230, the court awarded $400,000 in non-pecuniary damages in what it said is one of the worst sexual abuse cases. This is also in recognition of the devastating consequences for the plaintiff's wrongful behaviour.
This case also affirmed that the cap on general damages does not apply to sexual abuse cases. In quoting other cases, the court said that this cap should not apply "if the cause of action is an intentional tort involving criminal behaviour, such as sexual assault."
It now stands with the other exceptions to this cap, such as in defamation cases, as decided in Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130.
Workplace injuries can support both financial and non-financial claims, as when an employer fails to provide a safe and healthy environment, and that failure leads to injury.
The following damages can be recovered in these cases:
Sexual abuses in the workplace are also a common example where pain and suffering settlement or awards may be recovered, either from the employer or the person directly involved.
There are two main limits to understand for personal injury cases that award pain and suffering damages in Ontario:
These two systems work together in car accident cases, but the cap also matters in other Ontario personal injury claims.
In 1978, the Supreme Court of Canada set a maximum amount for non-pecuniary damages in three landmark cases often called the "trilogy cases" on personal injury. It fixed the original cap at $100,000 for pain and suffering but is adjusted every year for inflation.
In 2026, the cap is now at around $470,000.
Notably, this cap under common law only applies to non-pecuniary or pain and suffering damages. It does not limit special damages, such as:
In practice, most personal injury lawyers would say that only the most catastrophic injuries, such as very severe brain injuries or paralysis, come near this upper limit.
Ontario adds another layer for motor vehicle accident cases, which is the provincial Insurance Act's non-pecuniary loss deductibles.
These deductibles are meant to reduce or remove awards for moderate pain and suffering in car crashes, which has the effect of discouraging smaller lawsuits. It means that if the court assessed non-pecuniary damages below the deductible, the plaintiff would receive no pain and suffering payment at all for that motor vehicle claim.
As of January 2026, the statutory deductible on pain and suffering awards for motor vehicle accidents is $47,913.01 for awards under $159,708.71.
There are two instances where this statutory deductible does not apply:
Ontario's pain and suffering settlement examples are helpful markers, but they are not promises. Courts still look at the severity of the injury, how long symptoms last, and how the daily lives of the plaintiffs have changed.
For lawyers, these examples support better advice and better expectation setting with clients. Together, they help both sides talk about what fair compensation might look like, inside Ontario's caps, deductibles, and common law precedents.
Head over to our Events page for a list of the upcoming lawyer conferences that you may be interested in. These would include inputs to help your practice, such as topics on personal injury and pain and suffering settlement examples.
