What is the test for punitive damages in a personal injury action?

Punitive damages are awarded when the general damages do not cover the conduct of the other side. They are a measure of damages that reflect a punishment for reprehensible conduct. In Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. (2002) 209) D.L.R. (4th) 257 S.C.C. at paragraph 94, Binnie J. provided several points that might be considered when determining if punitive damages should apply. These are not obligatory, but it is important that the trial court look at the circumstances, the nature of the circumstances, the scope and exceptional nature of the remedy and fairness to the plaintiffs and the defendants. Such damages are exceptional and deal with malicious and highly reprehensible behaviour of a party. Such damages are entertained usually when the misconduct would not be punished or where a penalty would be inadequate to address the objectives of retribution, deterrence and denunciation. Punitive damages do not compensate a party but rather give the person a form of balancing or retribution while discouraging others from such behaviour. In paragraph 113, Binnie J. provided some examples of what might influence the level of blameworthiness. Planned and deliberate misconduct with intent or motive, persistence in such conduct over an extended time, concealment of the misconduct, the party being aware of acting wrongly, profiting from the misconduct. Did the perpetrator know that the misconduct violated the interest of the other side significantly in a personal way?