Search

Ontario Tribunal Awards

Tribunal Awards – Ontario HRTO
Case Tribunal Year Summary Compensatory Damages & Lost Income Awards
Tribunal Awards – Ontario HRTO
 General Comment  The reader should review the narrative section of the text dealing with compensatory damages and “mental anguish” awards prior to the amendments to the Ontario Code effective in June 30, 2008. See Chapter 6.3.
Sandford v Koop 2005 Two year period of provocative sexual harassment $25,000. There was also an award of $10,000 for mental anguish as was then allowed by the statute. The complaint against the employer was settled independently.
Lost income $18,570, moving expenses $666, medical reports $375
This award was against the personal respondent, Dr. Koop. He made no submissions on the remedy issue.
Arias v Desai 2003 Student sexually harassed and terminated as a reprisal. $25,000 plus $5,000 for mental anguish damages.
Lost income award of $1,920
Liability was joint and several due to personal respondent as “directing mind”
Desousa v Gauthier 2002 Sexual harassment and general reprisal. $25,000 inclusive of mental anguish damages and reprisal damages.
Liability was joint and several due to personal respondent as “directing mind”
Lost income award of $8,470
Baylis-Flannery v DeWilde 2003 Verbal and physical abuse and racial. Manager was told to find a pretext to fire the applicant. $35,000 plus $10,000 for mental anguish.
Lost income award of $3,384
Farris  v Staubach 2011 Sexually poisoned work environment due to disparaging comments by co-workers and the perpetuation of a sexual rumour about her; Respondents failed to address this. Poisoned environment was a factor in the decision to terminate her employment. $30,000 of which $15,000 was allocated to poisoned work environment.
Farris – Divisional Court set aside Div Ct 2011 Div Ct set aside decision not to find personal respondents liable as “directing mind”.
Reconsideration motion Personal respondents liable for $15,000 of the initial total $30,000 award and 50% of the poisoned work environment.
Metcalfe v Papa Joe’s Pizza 2005 Verbal sexual abuse accompanied by some touching $12,000, $8,000 for mental anguish
$5,000 lost income
Complainant’s father (apparently) was also awarded damages based on family status as he was a co-worker and supported the complaint. This award was $8,000 plus $4,000 for mental anguish and a wage loss of $1,800.
All awards were joint and several against the corporate and personal respondents.
Cugliara v Clubine 2006 Sexual solicitations. Kissing. $17,500 inclusive of damages for mental anguish
Medical report not required for mental anguish damage award.
Murchie v JB’s Mongolian Grill 2006 Touching of the applicant’s nipple; general damage award was influenced by the flawed investigation and the finding of reprisal for an incident which was serious, but isolated. $16,000, of which $15,000 was against corporate employer and $1,000 against personal respondent.
Lost income award of $4,329
Chard v Newton 2007 Sexual jokes and comments, touching of buttocks and breast on two distinct occasions. Cumulative award of $16,000 inclusive of mental anguish
Payotte v Alarm Guard Services 2011 Sexual solicitations $18,000 plus $5,000 for failure to investigate
Iu v Markham Marble Sexual advances, touched on  buttocks on one occasion, and on another occasion standing in front of her desk with his fly unzipped. $20,000
Hughes v 1308581 and Hussein 2009 Physical assaults, touching of breasts on one occasion and buttocks frequently and criminal conviction $25,000
Joint and several liability
Ratneiya v Daniel Krumeh 2009 Verbal sexual abuse and spanked on buttocks $25,000
Lost income award of $1,536
Joint and several liability
Birchall v. Andres 2013 Unwanted kissing and hugging and touching. The respondent kissed the applicant while holding her neck, kissed her chest and tried to force his tongue in her mouth. $30,000
C.U. v. Blencowe Reconsideration motion dismissed 2012 Repeated sexual comments, texting of images including one of his erect penis, repeatedly exposing himself to the applicant at work, and ultimately waving his penis side to side as he said goodbye. $30,000
Smith v Rover’s Rest 2013 Sexual comments to the applicant, touching her buttocks, making sexual advances toward her, and reprisal, as employment was terminated for refusing his sexual advances. $35,000
SH v M Painting 2009 Conduct was “persistent, unrelenting” and one act of sexual aggression which resulted in a criminal charge. The respondent ran his hand along her inner thigh, put his hand across her chest while driving, and also assaulted her by slamming her up against a car, kissed and bit her, undid her bra and attempted to undo her pants. $40,000
Lost income claim from May to November 2004
M.K 1217991 operating a Wimpy’s Diner 2010 Verbally abusive and threat of force to have sex and physical abuse, exposing his penis while masturbating, trying to insert his finger into the applicant’s vagina. $40,000
J.D. v The Ultimate Cut Unisex First applicant was based on  sexual comments and advances, touching her shoulders, back and leg and slapping her buttocks, asking her to sleep with a friend of his. In the second case, the respondent was found to have rubbed her upper thigh, asking about how her boyfriend touched her, offering her gifts, and ultimately hugging her and pulling her onto his lap. Each of two applicants awarded $40,000.
C.K. v H.S. 2014 The male forced the applicant to touch his genitalia and ejaculated on her. He also touched her breast and tried to pull her pants down. $45,000
Lost income award of $6,760
Smith v Menzies Chrysler HRTO 2009 Sexual harassment and reprisal and poisoned work environment. Colleague removed his pants in the complainant’s presence. Same person exposed his penis to the complainant, asked complaint to suck it. A total award of $50,000 was made to a male applicant which was apportioned as a total of $10,000 against two respondents individually, $25,000 against the employer, and $15,000 for reprisal.
 G.M. v X Tattoo Parlour & F.G.  HRTO

2018

 Unpaid 15 year old teenage intern, abused by close family friend. FG touched her buttocks and minimally, (for two seconds), inserted his finger in her vagina. He showed her his penis and invited her to touch it. She did so to appease him. He touched and put his mouth to her breasts. $75,000
joint and several liability due to controlling mind
O.P.T. and M.P.T v Presteve Foods Ltd. and Pratas HRTO 2015 Both complainants were migrant workers from Mexico in Canada on temporary work permits and threatened with termination and hence deportation, failing each one’s willingness to comply with the owner’s demand for sexual favours. The second victim, 22 years old, was required to leave Canada and return to Mexico. $150,000 and $50,000 respectively. No lost income claim was advanced.
Joint and several liability due to poisoned work environment by deeming statutory provision and also “directing mind”.
A.B. v Joe Singer Shoes & Paul Singer HRTO 2018 Applicant was required to submit to various forms of sexual demands, including sexual intercourse, over a period of 18 years. $200,000
joint and several liability by controlling mind

Ontario Human Rights Claims by Civil Action

OHRC Claims – Civil Action
Silvera v Olympia OSC 2015 Sexual assault – touching $30,000 as Human Rights damages. Action was undefended. Additional tort damages were awarded, as set out below.
Doyle v Zochem OCA 2017 Sexual harassment $25,000 for the Code violation of sexual harassment. The issue on appeal focused on the additional award made of $60,000 for moral damages, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The award of human rights damages was seen as one serving a distinct purpose although the “same conduct may ground separate awards”. Human rights awards are designed, the court noted, to compensate for the loss of “the right to be free from discrimination and the experience of victimization”.

Tribunal Awards B.C.

Tribunal Awards – B.C. BCHRT
MacDonald v. Najafi and another (No. 2) 2013 The conduct was limited to offensive language, yet insensitive and demeaning and persistent, made to a vulnerable young woman in need of employment, without physical contact. $4,000
Soroka v Dave’s Custom Metal 2010 Verbally offensive conduct, without affirmative evidence, medical or otherwise of the impact upon her, a disparity in age between the victim and the offender, yet causing the termination of the complainant’s employment, in part, due to her refusals. $5,000
McIntosh v Metro Alu minum Products 2011 Conduct was demeaning, provocative and aggressive, yet without any physical component. $12,500 plus $14,500 lost income
Harrison v Nixon Safety Consulting 2008 Verbal sexual harassment, including requests for sex and inappropriate touching. $15,000
 Harrison v. Nixon Safety Consulting and others (No. 3), 2008 Sexual harassment $15,000
Ratzlaff v Marpaul Construction 2010 The respondent forced his way into the applicant’s hotel room.  He grabbed her throat and kissed her aggressively, forcing his tongue into her mouth.  She said that he then grabbed her breasts and tried to get his hands into her vagina.  She kneed him in the thigh but he repeated his conduct. $25,000
 Senyk v. WFG Agency Network (No. 2), 2008 Sexual harassment and termination of employment. $35,000
P.N. v FR and another 2015 A young Filipino mother who was hired as a housekeeper and required to perform sexual acts “at the whim” of her employer. $50,000
General Considerations 2016 BC CA approves of award of $75,000. The high side award is that of $75,000 made in a case based on adverse treatment due to a mental disability. Kelly v. University of British Columbia, set aside on a judicial review application as “patently unreasonable” on first review, yet later restored by the Court of Appeal.

Tribunal Awards Alberta

Tribunal Awards – Alberta AHRC
Noel v 375850 Alberta Ltd. 2010 The complainant, living at a job site in northwestern Alberta, exited the shower and noticed a male camp maintenance worker watching her. A few days later, the same man was standing beside her bed when she awoke. $5,000
Hamm v WWDI Wireless 2009 The applicant was subjected to abusive behaviour of shoulder rubbing, being blown a kiss and retaliatory conduct of a dismissal letter and false accusations contained within it $4,500
General Considerations The rough maximum of Alberta awards was considered $10,000 until the award of $25,000 upheld by the Alberta Court of Appeal  Walsh v Mobil Oil. There was also a reprisal sum awarded in this case of $10,000.

Tribunal Awards Saskatchewan

Tribunal Awards – Saskatchewan The legislators of Saskatchewan have placed a limit on the sum which may be awarded for compensatory damages for a sexual harassment case, in fact any human rights violation, as $20,000. This includes any award for punitive damages. A person subjected to the most brutal forms of sexual abuse in a workplace environment will see such a maximum recovery.
Saskatchewan Board of Inquiry, Ratzlaff v. Dimas (1986), 7 C.H.R.R. D/3402 B of I 1986 A 19 year old woman, economically vulnerable, subjected to persistent physical and verbal harassment, suffering from severe injury to self-esteem. $2,400. The legislated cap was then $5,000.
Karlenzig v. Chris’ Holdings Ltd. (1991), 15 C.H.R.R. D/5. 1991 A woman suffered from a “serious physiological impairment” who reported “reported sleep disturbances, shaking, crying and nightmares”. $2,500. The legislated cap was then $5,000.
Shier v Edworthy Saskatchewan HRT 2003 A complainant who was the subject of one aggressive act of a physical nature, at age 21 or 22, highly physically and economically vulnerable, and subjected to verbal abuse on the same day, showing impact on her self-esteem, without “significant physiological impact”. $2,000. The legislated cap was then $10,000.

Tribunal Awards Manitoba

Tribunal Awards – Manitoba
Emslie v Doholoco 2014 The applicant was subject to physical contact by the owner of the business which caused severe emotional harm, including “anxiety, depression, flashbacks and panic attacks which continued for several years”. $15,000 for general damages and $5,000 punitive damages. The Manitoba Code allows for punitive damages of up to $5,000 against an individual and up to $25,000 against a corporation. This order was made against the owner personally. The panel noted the Ontario law which suggested a range of $12,000 to $50,000 and stated that awards in other provinces have been higher than that of Manitoba. Nothing was done to correct that. The facts in this case were said to support an award in the high end of the range.
Garland v. Tackaberry (c.o.b. Grape & Grain), [2013] MHRBAD 5. 2013 Abusive comments and conduct towards a young woman by a customer upon which the company refused to act. $7,750. This was the highest award prior to Emslie.
Metaser v Jewish Community Campus of Winnipeg Inc Inappropriate sexual jokes and sexual solicitations. $5,250

Tribunal Awards Quebec

Tribunal Awards – Quebec
Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse v Caisse populaire Desjardins d’Amqui 2003 Applicant’s manager confided to her repeatedly about his personal life, encouraged her to leave her spouse, made unwelcome comments of her physical appearance and tried to create situations where physical contact with her would be possible all over a period of years. $5,000
Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse v Quebec (Attorney General) 1998 Employee was the subject of sexually harassing attitudes, behaviours, insults and reprisals over many months. $7,000
Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Centre maraicher Eugene Guinois JR inc. 2005 $5,000 punitive damages in a case based on race

Tribunal Awards Nova Scotia

Tribunal Awards – Nova Scotia
Bennett v Hau’s Family Restaurant 2007 Range said to be between $1,000 to $5,000.
Slaunwhite v Bay Landing Dining Room 2005 Harassing conduct was verbal and physical. $3,500
Davison v N.S. Construction Safety, upheld in the N.S. Court of Appeal 2006 One reason for the apparently low range of the awards is that medical evidence was not routinely offered, or at least this was suggested by the Nova Scotia Board of Inquiry. In the same case the Board ordered $3,000 in general damages and $7,000 for punitive damages for reprisal and a further $3,000 for reprisal against the employer due to the actions of its Board. The Court of Appeal set aside the punitive award. The CA distanced itself on the issue of the need for medical evidence.

Tribunal Awards New Brunswick

Tribunal Awards – New Brunswick
Steeves v Woody’s Place 2007 Verbal abuse and some touching $2,000
SWE v BK 2007 Male complainant who was subjected to severe harassment by a male colleague. He woke up to discover the respondent committing fellatio upon him. $15,000

Tribunal Award – PEI

Reverend Gael Matheson v Presbytery of PEI The complainant was a 33 year old minister who was stalked by a member of the congregation. It had a devastating impact upon her life. The Presbytery did nothing to cause this conduct to cease. An award of $50,000 was made by the PEI Human Rights Commission in a complaint which was based on gender discrimination and sexual harassment. The complainant had lost her livelihood as her licence to practice her profession was withheld. The events of adverse treatment took place over an extended time period and her reputation was also damaged by the conduct in question. This is certainly an award at the high end of the scale. An award of a past income loss of $425,000 was also made plus a pension sum.

Tribunal Awards – Yukon- NWT

Tribunal Awards – Yukon
Lacosse and Dyck v. Childhood Discoveries Preschool, Board File No. 2012-03 Ongoing explicit sexual harassment $5,000
Hureau v Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication A woman was subjected to “not physically aggressive” conduct over a two week period was found to be at the “most mild end of the spectrum”. Tribunal ordered no compensation, an order which was replaced on review by an award of $5,000.
Tribunal Awards – NWT
Savage v 984239 NWT Ltd. 2008 A young apprentice mechanic in a vulnerable position, harassed by her supervisors, subjected to a physical assault, crude sexual remarks, pornography and threats of physical harm Damage awards in human rights cases have been traditionally capped in the range of $2,000 to $3,000, but here awarded $15,000. Punitive damages were also awarded of $2,500 and $5,000 against the personal respondents

Tribunal Awards Canada

Tribunal Awards – Canada
General Considerations There is a legislated cap on the sum to be awarded for compensatory damages of $20,000. The Act also allows for a further order up to $20,000 as “special damages” where the conduct is “wilful and reckless”, which sexual harassment conduct is routinely considered to be. The amendments allowing these two forms of awards came into effect in June of 1998. All awards prior to this date should be read with this qualifier in mind.
Berberi v Canada. Further issues arose which are not relevant to this issue, as noted in a subsequent hearing before the tribunal and the Federal Court, Trial Division. 2009 Awards in the range of $12,000 to $15,000 are reserved for “the most egregious discriminatory acts”.
Cassidy v Canada Post 2012 A single issue, albeit with a physical altercation of a “brief duration”. Compensatory award of $5,000, special damages of $2,500. Additional damages were also awarded for retaliatory conduct in the sum of $2,000 plus a further $500 as “special compensation”.
Woiden v Lynn Vulgar and offensive remarks and propositions made by the personal respondent. One of the complaints was based on family status. Each of three complainants were awarded $10,000 as “special compensation”.
Bushey v Sharma 2003 Severe and repeated contact, inside and outside the workplace, causing fear for the complainant’s well-being and unwanted physical contact on one occasion. $12,000 compensatory and $15,000 of “special compensation”. This award was made against the personal respondent and was found to be solely attributable to his offensive actions as a separate undisclosed sum had been paid by the employer.
Goodwin v Birkett 2004 The respondent was found naked on her bed touching her in sexual manner. Awards of $2,500 and $2,500 for “special compensation”. This was the quantum of the relief sought by the complainant
Naistus v. Chief 2009 Personal respondent was sexually obsessed with the complainant over a two year period, was humiliated resulting in anxiety and depression causing the need for an emotional distress leave. This conduct caused the victim to leave the town in which she lived and start a new life elsewhere. Awards of $16,000 and an additional sum of $18,000 was made as “special compensation”.

Vicarious Liability – Civil Cases

Vicarious Liability Cases
K.T. v Denis Vranich, Elixir and Par adise Lane Developments Hamilton Inc. OSC 2011 Case by waitress sexually assaulted against employee of bar and finding of vicarious liability. The employee was also seen as “operating mind” which is usually seen as a ground of liability independently of the VL test. Judgment jointly and severally. The case was undefended.
Hudson v Youth Continuum, Phillip Brindle and The Brindle Agency Inc OSC 2012 The judgment was against the personal and corporate defendants jointly and severally. There is no analysis of vicarious liability, however. The case was undefended.
Pawlett v Dominion Pro tection Service Court of Appeal Alb CA 2008 Finding on vicarious liability where the plaintiff was supervised by person she believed was in charge of the company, often left alone together. No sexual harassment manual found as a factor in the finding.
Ivic v Lokavic Leave to Appeal denied OCA 2017 SCC Feb 2018 OCA finds against vicarious liability in case of sexual assault by cab driver against intoxicated woman travelling alone

Administrative Remedy – Employer Liability

Administrative Remedy – Employer Liability
O.P.T. and M.P.T v Presteve Foods Ltd. and Pratas HRTO 2015 Joint and several liability due to poisoned work environment by deeming statutory provision and also “directing mind”.
 A.B. v Singer Shoes & Paul Singer  HRTO

2018

 Joint and several liability based on “directing mind”.
Farris – Divisional Court set aside Div Ct 2011 Div Ct set aside Tribunal decision which had erred in not applying the “directing mind” principle to find personal respondents liable.
Desousa v Gauthier 2002  Personal respondents were directing minds.
G.M. v X Tattoo Parlour HRTO

2018

Joint and several liability based on “directing mind”.

Claims in Tort & Fiduciary Duty

Tort Claims
Clark v Canada. FC TD 1994 Intentional Infliction of mental suffering;
Sexual abuse and poisoned work environment;
Sexually abusive language. Males watched pornographic movies in office next to her.
$5,000; $88,000 for lost earnings.
Boothman v Canada FC TD 1993 Assault
Intentional infliction of mental suffering
Verbally abusive and threatening language. This was not a case of sexual abuse.
$5,000, loss of future earnings $20,000, punitive damages $10,000
Pawlett v Dominion Pro tection Service Alta QB 2007 The personal defendant was found to have shown the plaintiff sexually explicit images, tried to hold her hands, put his hand on her thigh, slap her buttocks. He also grabbed her, tried to kiss her, and forced his hand under her sweater. Action in battery plus vicarious liability. An award was made of 2 months’ severance which was then increased by a further three months due to the unfair conduct, as the case was pre Keays v Honda.

A further order was made for $50,000 in punitive damages and $25,000 for the tort of assault. Vicarious liability was found against the employer.

Court of Appeal Alta CA 2008 The punitive damage award was reduced on appeal to $5,000. The appeal, however, did not contest the quantum of compensatory damages but rather only liability for this award. There was further argument as to quantum of punitive damages, which were reduced by $45,000 as the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had unfairly emphasized the conduct of the wrongdoer in assessing the damages in the battery tort claim. End result was $25,000 general damages and $5,000 punitive damages.
Doyle v Zochem OCA 2017 Sexual harassment; severe verbally sexually abusive language, terminated as a reprisal. $25,000 for the Code violation of sexual harassment. The issue on appeal focused on the additional award made of $60,000 for moral damages, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. Substantial indemnity costs of the appeal as part of the pattern of harassment.
Corfield v Shaw BCSC 2011 Assault
Nine separate sexual assaults
$60,000 inclusive of aggravated damages; past income loss of $22,500.
Strong v Kisbee (Estate Trustee). OCA 2000 Counterclaim in assault was based on the employee’s allegations that she was raped by the plaintiff. $100,000
Silvera v Olympia OSC 2015 Sexual assault,
intentional infliction of mental suffering; breach of fiduciary duty; Occupier’s Liability Act;
Breach of obligation of good faith and fair dealing at the time of dismissal
In addition to the human rights damages of $30,000 as above, other sums were awarded in the civil action for aggravated damages of $90,000, $10,000 as punitive damages, $42,750 for future therapy care, $33,900 for future lost income, further aggravated damages of $15,000 due to the manner of dismissal, additional punitive damages of $10,000 and a wrongful dismissal claim of $57,800. The action was undefended.
Total award was $289,450
K.T. v Denis Vranich, Elixir and Par adise Lane Developments Hamilton Inc. OSC 2011 Breach of fiduciary duty;
Victims Bill of Rights Act;
Battery;
Negligence.
Summer student physically assaulted. Defendant confined her, touched her breasts and vagina, laughing while he did so.
$125,000 inclusive of aggravated damages of $25,000. Loss of future earnings of $75,000 and punitive damages of $25,000. The case was undefended.
City of Calgary Arb award 2013 Sexual harassment; “fondled” on multiple occasions at her desk. The complainant was harassed following her request for an investigation. She suffered acute anxiety and suicidal ideations. The arbitrator was empowered to consider human rights, tort and arbitral remedies. $125,000. Lost income award of $135,000 plus pension loss of $68,000. Future income loss $500,000.
Hudson v Youth Continuum, Phillip Brindle and The Brindle Agency Inc OSC 2012 Negligence and vicarious liability.
The plaintiff was viciously attacked and raped by a troubled youth under her care. She was required to change her chosen career.
$150,000 inclusive of $50,000 for aggravated damages. $188,000 in past income loss, $300,000 in future income loss. Claim in negligence and vicarious liability. The case was undefended.
M.B. v Deluxe Windows and Mickey Weig OCA 2012 Assault and Battery.
The plaintiff suffered from depression, anxiety, fatigue, lost sexual desire and was suicidal due to the conduct in question. Experts from both sides confirmed that the plaintiff suffered from post- traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder.
$300,000; aggravated damages of $25,000.

Similar Damage Claims for Sexual Abuse in Non-employment Cases

 

Zando v Ali OCA 2018 Forced intercourse by a male physician upon a colleague. OCA upheld trial award of damages for sexual assault in the sum of $175,000 and punitive damages of $25,000 plus costs of $325,000. This case is a good review of the principles of the assessment of such a damage claim.
Rosenthal v Rosenthal OSC 2014 Sexual abuse by parent General damages inclusive of aggravated damages $18,000, $450,000 past income loss, $45,000 future income loss, 30,000 punitive damages. The case was undefended.
A.B. v C.D. BCSC 2011 Sexual touching by teacher to student General damages of $50,000, damages for loss of future earning capacity of $30,000, special damages of $10,045, and future care expenses of $20,000.
R.B. v E.S. OSC 2017 Plaintiff sexually abused by her criminal lawyer. Single instance of non-consensual physical abuse. $70,000 general damages, $5,000 future counselling
Kauk v Dickson OSC 2005 Plaintiff was viciously attached and sexually assaulted after leaving a bar.
Defendant was sentenced to 8 yrs in jail.
$75,000 general damages.
Kauk v Dickson OCA OCA Claim against bar failed as event was not foreseeable
B.M.G. v Nova Scotia NS CA 2007 Sexual assault in non-employment context $80,000 in general damages inclusive of aggravated damages, $500,000 for past and future income loss.
Paton v Phaure
2002 Carswell Ont 2389
OSC Plaintiff who was driven to a deserted area and sexually assaulted. $75,000 general and $20,000 aggravated damages.
D.M. v W.W. OSC 2013 Claim of sexual abuse as a 12 year old against uncle $95,000 general damages, $30,000 punitive damages, $85,000 loss of earning capacity, $10,000 future care and substantial indemnity costs. The damage assessment was undefended.
Doe 464533 v N.D. OSC 2016 Posting of intimate video on pornographic website $100,000 general damages
Shulz v Attorney-General and upheld on appeal although no issue of liability on appeal BC CA 2006 The claim based on verbally abusive conduct, not sexual harassment.
Negligent infliction of mental suffering
$125,000 general damages, $600,000 future income loss, $225,00 past income loss
L.M.M. v Nova Scotia NS CA 2011 Sexual assault in non-employment context against same defendants as above in parallel case (B.M.G. v Nova Scotia) $125,000 for general damages, $250,000 for lost income and $60,000 future counselling. The Appeal allowed the future counselling which was neither denied nor awarded at trial.
Evans v Sproule 2008 Sexual assault by police officer in cruiser while on duty. The plaintiff suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression requiring medical treatment. $150,000 general and aggravated damages, $40,000 lost earning capacity, $12,342 future therapy costs and $25,000 punitive damages.
Whitfield v Whitfield OSC 2014 Prolonged period of sexual abuse by sibling. $250,000 general damages, $50,000 punitive, special damages of $54,200
Waters v Bains BCSC 2008 Sexual abuse by aunt and uncle. $325,000 general damages, $80,000 punitive, $10,000 costs of future care

Similar Damage Claims for Sexual Abuse in Non-employment Cases

Rosenthal v Rosenthal OSC 2014 Sexual abuse by parent General damages inclusive of aggravated damages $18,000, $450,000 past income loss, $45,000 future income loss, 30,000 punitive damages. The case was undefended.
A.B. v C.D. BCSC 2011 Sexual touching by teacher to student General damages of $50,000, damages for loss of future earning capacity of $30,000, special damages of $10,045, and future care expenses of $20,000.
R.B. v E.S. OSC 2017 Plaintiff sexually abused by her criminal lawyer. Single instance of non-consensual physical abuse. $70,000 general damages, $5,000 future counselling
Kauk v Dickson OSC 2005 Plaintiff was viciously attached and sexually assaulted after leaving a bar.
Defendant was sentenced to 8 yrs in jail.
$75,000 general damages.
Kauk v Dickson OCA OCA Claim against bar failed as event was not foreseeable
B.M.G. v Nova Scotia NS CA 2007 Sexual assault in non-employment context $80,000 in general damages inclusive of aggravated damages, $500,000 for past and future income loss.
Paton v Phaure
2002 Carswell Ont 2389
OSC Plaintiff who was driven to a deserted area and sexually assaulted. $75,000 general and $20,000 aggravated damages.
D.M. v W.W. OSC 2013 Claim of sexual abuse as a 12 year old against uncle $95,000 general damages, $30,000 punitive damages, $85,000 loss of earning capacity, $10,000 future care and substantial indemnity costs. The damage assessment was undefended.
Doe 464533 v N.D. OSC 2016 Posting of intimate video on pornographic website $100,000 general damages
Shulz v Attorney-General and upheld on appeal although no issue of liability on appeal BC CA 2006 The claim based on verbally abusive conduct, not sexual harassment.
Negligent infliction of mental suffering
$125,000 general damages, $600,000 future income loss, $225,00 past income loss
L.M.M. v Nova Scotia NS CA 2011 Sexual assault in non-employment context against same defendants as above in parallel case (B.M.G. v Nova Scotia) $125,000 for general damages, $250,000 for lost income and $60,000 future counselling. The Appeal allowed the future counselling which was neither denied nor awarded at trial.
Evans v Sproule 2008 Sexual assault by police officer in cruiser while on duty. The plaintiff suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression requiring medical treatment. $150,000 general and aggravated damages, $40,000 lost earning capacity, $12,342 future therapy costs and $25,000 punitive damages.
Whitfield v Whitfield OSC 2014 Prolonged period of sexual abuse by sibling. $250,000 general damages, $50,000 punitive, special damages of $54,200
Waters v Bains BCSC 2008 Sexual abuse by aunt and uncle. $325,000 general damages, $80,000 punitive, $10,000 costs of future care