Can a punitive damages award be reviewed on appeal?

In Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto 1995 CanLII 59 (SCC), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130, Cory J. reconfirmed the general appellate reluctance to intervene in trial damage awards. Nonetheless, he did recognize the need for Canadian appellate courts to supervise awards for punitive damages more critically than awards for general or compensatory damages. Noting at p. 1208 that: ... Unlike compensatory damages, punitive damages are not at large. Consequently, courts have a much greater scope and discretion on appeal. Cory J. continued at p. 1209: The appellate review should be based upon the court’s estimation as to whether the punitive damages serve a rational purpose. In other words, was the misconduct of the defendant so outrageous that punitive damages were rationally required to act as deterrence?