Kirk Keeping vs Ontario: Analyzing Class Action & Legal Implications

This case study analyzes Kirk Keeping's class action lawsuit against the Ontario government, focusing on allegations of abuse at now-defunct training schools. The lawsuit, seeking $600 million in damages, covers former residents of these schools between 1953 and 1984. The analysis considers the legal basis for punitive and exemplary damages, referencing relevant case law to support potential claims. It also examines the complexities of class action lawsuits, including cost considerations and the discretion of judges in awarding damages. The study further discusses the potential for psychological harm and additional reprehensible conducts, emphasizing the importance of deterring bad behaviors. The final compensation to the claimants depends on specific circumstances of the case and the reasonableness of the $600 million proposals. Desklib provides access to similar case studies and solved assignments for students.

Surname 1
Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
ARTICLE ANALYSIS
In this case, Kirk Keeping is a man trying to bring a class action lawsuit against
province's now-defunct training school for allegedly badly abusing him and others at the
schools. The case was filed December 6th, 2018 on the claim that students that resided in the
training schools between Jan. 1, 1953, and April 2, 1984, were abused and others were forced
to beat up on other children or meted out physical punishment themselves .It has now turned
into a group that could go beyond 21,000 former residents of the 13 branches of the
institution. A trial judge allowed the case against the training schools to proceed as a class
action lawsuit in an effort to eliminate the need for a two-day hearing that had been scheduled
for a week later. The court has taken the cases and will soon be receiving oral statements
from both the claimants and the defendant. A former Quebec judge argued that in 2002,
Ontario had reached a settlement with the survivors of three institutions. This included St.
Joseph's, St. John's and Grandview
Punitive damages and Exemplary damages
Punitive and exemplary damages are the major categories that apply in these cases.
Exemplary damages alone are considered to be limited based on the circumstances within
these cases. Therefore punitive damages can be applied based on the fact that there were
allegations of “oppressive, arbitrary and unconstitutional activities that were exercised by a
servant of government” (Eisenberg 5-18).
We can base our argument on the case of Das v George Weston Limited, 2017 to state
that the conducts complied were oppressive and unconstitutional which can be termed as

Surname 2
misconducts. Also in Holne v Constable of Lancashire was ruled that it was unconstitutional
for the forced imprisonment towards the claimants, in the sense that, it was wrongful for the
police officers to conduct wrongful arrests irrespective of the fact that there was the absence
of oppressive behaviors (Eisenberg 331)
Reference to these cases, another principle is where the accused appears to have
calculated the conduct. It is always important to show the law that the law cannot be broken
without impunity, where the accused has organised his actions which might possibly inflict
damage to the victim. Therefore, if the tort was committed in relation to the incident alleged
by Mr. Keeping, that would be would be sufficient to claim a higher compensation but it
cannot amount to $ 600 million.
Eisenberg, Theodore, et al. (615) states that “the purpose of exemplary damages is to
deter and in its absence, the punitive damages should also extend to psychological torture as
it a clear public interest in punishing and deterring bad behaviors of such nature, which merits
offering accession to the claimants.” Awarding of $ 600 million of punitive and exemplary
damages can be anchored on the idea that the psychological harm on the plaintiff was
increased because some of the students were forced to beat the fellow student, where some of
them die. Therefore, the plaintiff should only be compensated specifically for the additional
harm that was caused by the Ontario government due to the reprehensible conducts
(Rendleman, 923).
The reprehensible nature of the defendants conducts caused loss of lives, additional
psychological torture, and humiliation of the former students .While the court might separate
punitive damages and exemplary damages from the general damages, in these cases, they are
not separate in principle (Yapp 18). Therefore, they can only be assessed as part of the
general damages that were inflicted on the students.

Surname 3
Trends in Ontario cases suggests that court could be willing to award meaningful cost
against class action plaintiff in appropriate cases. According to the Class Proceedings Act,
1992, a plaintiff (Mr. Keeping & others) is “entitles to the spoils of victory”. How this will be
a very expensive class action can only be determined by the ability of the plaintiff to argue
that the cost should be reduced where the class actions purported to advance the public
interest (Lahav and Alexandra 49).
In addition, the cost award to a successful claimant would be at the discretion of the
judges and thus would be very hard to predict .If the court considered that the $ 600 million
proposals as “unreasonable” Mr. Keeping and others won’t be compensated .However, the
Ontario Superior court has in several instances cautioned that high-cost claims, in certain
circumstances, can be considered unreasonable. The court of appeal has also recognised that
the cost of large magnitudes needs comprehensive review before being awarded (Fitzpatrick
811-846).Therefore, the award to the claimants will highly depend on specific circumstances
of the case.

Surname 4
Works Cited
Eisenberg, Theodore, et al. "The decision to award punitive damages: An empirical
study." Journal of Legal Analysis 2.2 (2010): 577-620.
Eisenberg, Theodore, Michael Heise, and Martin T. Wells. "Variability in Punitive Damages:
Empirically Assessing Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker." Journal of Institutional and
Theoretical Economics JITE 166.1 (2010): 5-26.
Eisenberg, Theodore, and Michael Heise. "Judge‐Jury Difference in Punitive Damages
Awards: Who Listens to the Supreme Court?." Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 8.2
(2011): 325-357.
Fitzpatrick, Brian T. "An empirical study of class action settlements and their fee
awards." Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 7.4 (2010): 811-846.
Lahav, Alexandra D. "Two Views of the Class Action." Fordham L. Rev. 79 (2010): 1939.
Rendleman, Doug. "Measurement of Restitution: Coordinating Restitution with
Compensatory Damages and Punitive Damages." Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 68 (2011):
973.
Yapp, Shaeron. "Araya v nevsun resources and law reform." Brief 45.5 (2018): 18.