In this case of historic sexual abuse, the plaintiff was sexually assaulted from 1978 to 1980 by his elementary school teacher. At the time of trial he was 51 years old. He led evidence that he suffered from serious mental health problems as a result of the abuse, including depression, PTSD, and anti-social behaviour. He had difficulty sustaining interdependent personal relationships and had difficulty maintaining employment. He was awarded damages in the total amount of $2,413,442.11 plus PJI.
The subject of this action was an MVA which involved a family of five. The mother and two oldest sons sustained injuries as a result of the accident. Tragically, their five month old son/brother died as a result of the collision. The Defendant admitted liability, but disputed threshold. Justice Hockin found that all of the Plaintiffs’ injuries met threshold. The mother was awarded $145,000.00 in general damages for soft tissue injuries and psychological issues. Each son was awarded $65,000.00 in general damages for psychological issues. Justice Hockin followed the Court of Appeal’s reasons in To v. Toronto, and awarded FLA damages at the high end of the range, adjusted for current dollars. The mother was awarded $130,000.00 in relation to the death of her infant son. The father was also awarded $130,000.00 for the death of his infant son and $25,000.00 for the loss of care, guidance, and companionship of his wife. Each son was awarded $35,000.00 in relation to the death of his brother and $30,000.00 for loss of care, guidance, and companionship of his mother. In total, $415,000.00 was awarded in FLA damages.
The jury awarded the Plaintiff $42,250.00 for pain and suffering which was reduced to $4,266.67. Justice MacLeod also awarded 4% interest because of the delay in the trial occurring. The jury awarded $76,121.00 for past income loss which was reduced to $0 after deductions for accident benefits and LTD benefits were considered. Justice MacLeod noted that this was a “disastrous outcome for the Plaintiff” which “illustrated the legislative intention that all but the most significant tort claims should be eliminated and injured motorists be largely confined to claiming no fault benefits under their own insurance policies”.
In this case, Mr. Hoang dropped his two children, niece, and nephew (ages 6 to 13) off at an intersection in Toronto and planned to go find a place to park his car. The chilrden started across Yonge Street at a pedestrian crosswalk on the north side of Queens Quay. The three older children were walking in front and the Plaintiff was walking alone a few feet behind them. As the Plaintiff reached the middle of Yonge Street, a gust of wind blew his hat off of his head and the Plaintiff ran into the middle of the intersection. The Plaintiff was hit by a vehicle and sustained numerous injuries, including a severe brain injury. The jury awarded the Plaintiff $854,228.22 in damages and $899,750.00 in costs. The Defendant insurer argued that it was not liable to pay the damages awarded against Mr. Hoang because the Plaintiff’s injuries did not arise from the ownership or use or operation of an automobile. Justice Morgan held that the jury’s particularization of Mr. Hoang’s negligence included his use and operation of the motor vehicle (e.g. his poor choice of unloading area and poor driving) that caused the risk that caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. As such, the Defendant insurer was ordered to pay the Plaintiff’s damages.
The Plaintiff sought damages under the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.F.3, following the death of his wife in an MVA. The Plaintiff was blind and his deceased wife had been his primary caregiver. The Plaintiff sought damages that would take into account the pecuniary loss he now suffered as a result of his wife’s death. Justice Mew considered the actual economic loss suffered by the Plaintiff (rather than the “conventional” damages ranges for loss of guidance, care, and companionship) and awarded the Plaintiff $390,000.00 in FLA damages (based on the value of three years of potential services that the Plaintiff had lost from his deceased spouse).