Canada Case Law

Glanz v. Hooker

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Trial judge found plaintiff's accounts internally inconsistent and inherently implausible, and materially contradicted by credible third‑party witnesses (particularly Mendel and Boyetchko) who described prolonged consensual interactions; on balance of probabilities first touching was consensual and second violent battery was not proven; further, even assuming liability, medical evidence did not establish on a balance of probabilities that the alleged second battery caused the claimed concussion/epilepsy; claim therefore dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Assault
• Battery
• Sexual battery
• Consent
• Causation
• Credibility and reliability

Read case analysis

Dunford v. Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge correctly applied the legal test for vicarious liability and, on the totality of the evidence, reasonably concluded the hospital's relationship to Dr. Anderson was not sufficiently close—he was independent, not an agent or employee, the hospital lacked control over his activities, and the misconduct could not be regarded as a materialization of the hospital's risks—therefore vicarious liability did not apply and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Vicarious liability
• Sexual battery
• Compensation
• Deterrence
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

M.R.P. v. Smith

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found repeated childhood sexual assault and battery by the defendant, dismissed intentional infliction of mental suffering, and awarded damages.

• Sexual assault
• Sexual battery
• Intentional infliction of mental suffering
• Damages
• Causation
• Evidence (credibility and prior consistent statements)

Read case analysis

K.H.C. v. Scheirer

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found the defendant liable for sexual battery and awarded non-pecuniary, punitive and future care damages after relying on the prior criminal conviction.

• Sexual battery
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Aggravated damages
• Punitive damages
• Future care costs
• Issue estoppel/comity

Read case analysis

K.K.M. v. Greif

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found the defendant liable for sexual battery and awarded the plaintiff $266,750 plus $1,609.52 under the Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

• Sexual battery
• Liability
• Causation
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Past pecuniary loss
• Future pecuniary loss

Read case analysis

S.M. v. McNutt

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Court accepted plaintiff's credible, uncontradicted evidence and found defendant liable for sexual battery; applied G.(B.M.) horizontal comparison methodology to set a range of $80,000–$225,000 for non-pecuniary damages given the facts (child victim, multiple invasive incidents, position of trust, serious but not lifelong incapacitating consequences) and placed the award at $145,000; awarded prejudgment interest of $27,187 (2.5% for 7.5 years), deducted prior settlements of $11,000, resulting in total non-pecuniary award of $161,187; awarded costs $14,563.

Source excerpt

• Sexual battery
• Non-pecuniary damages
• Vicarious liability
• Pre-judgment interest
• Costs

Read case analysis

Anderson v. Molon

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found Father Molon liable for sexual battery and the Diocese directly negligent and vicariously liable, awarding compensatory and punitive damages.

• Sexual battery
• Duty of care of a diocese
• Vicarious liability
• Causation
• Damages assessment
• Punitive and aggravated damages

Read case analysis

Ossudallah v. Swiss Consulting Management Ltd.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On a Rule 9-5 application, the court struck pleadings about sexual and financial impropriety from a wrongful dismissal claim, but allowed a later amendment application for sexual battery.

• Wrongful dismissal
• Aggravated damages
• Punitive damages
• Pleading strike
• Sexual battery
• Production of electronic documents

Read case analysis

L.H.E. v. D.A.E.

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

The appeal is allowed and the applications judge's decision is set aside because he failed to address the threshold issue whether the matter was appropriate for summary adjudication and denied the parties procedural fairness by not allowing cross-examination on affidavits; accordingly his summary judgment on liability cannot stand and the matter must be reconsidered applying Rule 17A principles including appropriate treatment of cross-examination and the threshold inquiry.

Source excerpt

• Summary trial
• Procedural fairness
• Cross-examination
• Laches
• Youth/age defence
• Limitations period

Read case analysis

PP v. DD

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is dismissed: damages for involuntary parenthood claimed by one parent against the other for emotional or economic consequences of raising a healthy child are not recoverable in tort in these circumstances, and misrepresentation about contraceptive use did not vitiate consent to sexual touching absent a significant risk of serious bodily harm, so the pleaded claims disclose no reasonable cause of action and were properly struck under r.21.

Source excerpt

• Fraudulent misrepresentation
• Vitiated consent
• Involuntary parenthood
• Child support
• Damages
• Sexual battery

Read case analysis