In his concurring reasons in Ross v. Lamport, 1956 CanLII 7 (SCC), [1956] S.C.R. 366 at 375, 2 D.L.R. (2d) 225 at 233, Rand J. said: An inflammatory address, in the proper understanding of that expression, is sufficient in itself to call for a re-assessment unless, among other things, it can be said that the amount awarded demonstrates that the jury could not have been influenced by it.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.