LAWYER INSIGHTS
Our sexual assault and abuse lawyers share their insights to help you move forward.
Recent Compensation Awards Made By Courts To Women Who Were Sexually Assaulted As Adults: Factors That Affect Amounts For Pain and Suffering
Damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life in civil sexual assault cases involving women who were violated and abused as adults (not children) have long been undervalued, but following the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s landmark 2018 decision in Zando v Ali, have things changed?
Damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life in civil sexual assault cases involving women who were violated and abused as adults (not children) have long been undervalued, but following the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s landmark 2018 decision in Zando v Ali, have things changed?
In Zando, a case involving one occasion of sexual assault against a female physician by her male physician colleague, the Court of Appeal confirmed that the range of damages for pain and suffering for a single incident of penetrative sexual assault against an adult woman was, in 2018 dollars, $144,000 to $290,000. Adjusted for inflation, this now amounts to a range of $162,985 to $328,234. The plaintiff in Zando was awarded $198,072 (in 2022 dollars) for pain and suffering, even though the defence had tried to use the fact that there was no evidence of long-term psychological trauma to lessen her entitlement. The Court of Appeal, upholding the trial judge’s award, confirmed that “damages for sexual battery or assault are not solely to compensate for physical or mental injuries.” Rather, an award for pain and suffering fulfills a range of functions, including “the recognition of the humiliating and degrading nature of the wrongful acts.”
Following Zando, courts have continued to recognize the profound and often lifelong harms caused by a single incident of sexual assault, and this is now being more appropriately reflected in damage awards for pain and suffering for adult survivors of sexual assault and violence. For example, in a recent Ontario case, J.B. v R.B., 2021 ONSC 1023, the plaintiff, who was 33 years old at the relevant time, was sexually assaulted on one occasion while she was sleeping, resulting in pregnancy. Following the defendant being noted in default, the plaintiff moved for default judgment. The plaintiff was awarded $275,000 for pain and suffering, with the court recognizing the “humiliating and degrading nature” of what the plaintiff had endured.
Outside of Ontario, courts have not been prepared to define an acceptable range of compensation for cases involving adult victims of sexual abuse. However, there have been some recent, noteworthy awards made by courts in civil cases outside of Ontario involving both single and repeated sexual assaults on adult women, for example:
ES v Shillington, 2021 ABQB 739 – the plaintiff was repeatedly physically and sexually assaulted by her male spouse. He also posted intimate photographs of her online without her consent. The Alberta court awarded her $225,000 for pain and suffering, stating that the acts perpetrated against her were meant to “control, degrade and humiliate” her, and the impacts she experienced would be “long-lasting and severe.”
Anderson v Molon, 2020 BCSC 1247 – the plaintiff, who was 26 years old at the relevant time, was sexually assaulted by her Catholic priest 70 to 100 times over a series of months. In addition to a substantial punitive damages award, the B.C. court awarded the plaintiff $275,000 for pain and suffering.
D. v Mostowy, 2021 BCSC 1920 – the plaintiff, who was 44 years old at the relevant time, was groomed and repeatedly sexually assaulted by her male boss in the workplace. The assaults involved back and shoulder massages, and escalated to him masturbating on her breasts. The B.C. court awarded her $157,500 for pain and suffering.
M. v Contreras-Ramirez, 2021 BCSC 1341 – the plaintiff as an adult woman was sexually assaulted by her male massage therapist on one occasion. The assault involved groping and digital penetration. The matter was disposed of summarily. The B.C. court awarded her $100,000 for pain and suffering.
Y.H. v Y. LTD, 2021 SKQB 28 – the plaintiff, age 50 at the time, was sexually assaulted on one occasion by a male stranger. While on a bus trip, the bus driver pulled down the plaintiff’s clothing, sucked on her breasts, and attempted to digitally penetrate her. The sexual assault included violence. The Saskatchewan court awarded her $100,000 for pain and suffering, commenting that “all sexual assaults involve a violation of the victim’s sexual integrity.”
While there are many aggravating factors that may entitle a plaintiff to greater damages for pain and suffering, such as their age and vulnerability at the time of the assault or how repeated, violent, or invasive the assault was, as confirmed in Zando and as shown by the recent cases discussed above, there is a deepening recognition by the courts of the inherent wrongfulness and harmful consequences of sexual assault and abuse, including for a single incident.
Contact CARLY Today
Lerners understands you need someone to believe in you. Our consultations are free. Call today and let us help you and your family.
Criminal Publication Bans And Your Civil Lawsuit: What You Need To Know
There is much reform needed when it comes to criminal publication bans.
Recently, a sexual assault survivor was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, breaking a publication ban protecting her own identity. The ban had been ordered in a criminal proceeding against the survivor’s ex-husband, who was convicted of sexually assaulting her. Such a ban, ordered based on section 486.4 of the Criminal Code, prohibits the sharing of any information that could identify a complainant in a criminal proceeding.
Following the conviction of her ex-husband, the survivor shared a transcript of the judge’s reasons for conviction with friends and family, which was then reportedly passed on to a friend of the guilty party. When the ex-husband learned about this, he contacted the police, and the survivor was charged criminally for breaking the ban. She pleaded guilty, and was fined $2000 and ordered to pay a $600 victim surcharge fee.
After outrage from women’s advocates over this unjust result and national media coverage, the survivor obtained a new lawyer and appealed the conviction. The Crown conceded the appeal, based on an apparent legal technicality (the guilty plea was entered under the wrong section of the Criminal Code), and the survivor’s conviction was overturned. While this case eventually saw justice done, the revictimization of the complainant by the guilty ex-husband, by the Crown, and arguably also by the court that convicted her cannot be undone.
There is much reform needed when it comes to criminal publication bans. These bans are routinely requested by Crown attorneys and ordered by courts in cases involving sexual violence, often without any input from or explanation to survivors. While intended to protect their identity and promote reporting, these bans can be paternalistic and result in the unintended silencing of survivors. It is imperative that complainants are afforded some choice when it comes to sharing their identity, that their input on this be sought both at the outset and conclusion of a criminal proceeding (because they may change their mind), and that they have access to a straightforward and cost-free process to have a ban lifted should they request it.
It needs to be borne in mind here: a criminal case involves the state (Crown) against a person accused of a crime. The complainant (alleged victim of the crime or survivor) is not a party to the criminal proceeding. They are mere witnesses with no control over that proceeding. They give up their privacy, time, emotional resources and often their personal property (such as phone or computer), and more, to assist the criminal process and our society make those who have committed crimes accountable. The publication ban process is in urgent need of reform so it does not impose even greater burdens on survivors.
Publication bans do not just impact a survivor’s ability to share their story with those closest to them, these bans can also impact their ability to share their identity in a related civil lawsuit. The Ontario Superior Court recently confirmed in H.A. v S.M. that naming a plaintiff in civil pleadings where a criminal publication ban has already been ordered risks violating the ban.
For those who want to remain anonymous in their civil lawsuit (i.e. using initials or a pseudonym), a criminal publication ban can actually be of great benefit, potentially removing the usual hurdles to getting an anonymity order (see my colleague Ashley Boyes’ discussion of civil anonymity orders here). For example, and similar to the case of H.A. v. S.M., in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Attorney General) v L.A., the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal held that a related criminal publication ban continued to apply in the civil proceeding, overturning an anonymity order by the lower court on the basis that it was duplicative of the criminal ban. In both these civil cases, the plaintiffs were ordered to be identified by their initials as a direct result of the existing criminal publication bans.
While this is good news to some, for others it has the potential to derail or complicate their need to be heard and not further silenced. For those who want to use their name in a civil lawsuit where a ban is already in place, they may have to apply to the court to have the ban lifted. This can add unnecessary complexity and cost to a civil case, and delay justice and compensation for a survivor.
If you are a survivor of sexual violence and a complainant in a criminal proceeding, it is important to consider the implications of a publication ban, including on any potential future civil claim you may wish to bring. Speak with a lawyer for legal advice as early as possible.
Finally, lawyers assisting survivors with civil lawsuits must be alive to the real risks of naming a client in a pleading where there is a related criminal publication ban. The charges laid against the survivor in the case referenced above should serve as a wake up call: until the law and practices around such bans are reformed, breaches of criminal publication bans, even if inadvertent, can lead to stiff penalties and even criminal conviction.
Contact CARLY Today
Lerners understands you need someone to believe in you. Our consultations are free. Call today and let us help you and your family.
So You Won The Trial? Now It's Time To Enforce Judgment
Carly Moore helps you to learn about strategies to enforce judgments in sexual abuse cases. Discover how survivors can hold wrongdoers accountable even after winning their cases in court.
After years of litigation and stress, you finally get your day in court and a decision is made in your favour. But is this really success if you can’t collect against the wrongdoer?
In civil claims against perpetrators of sexual violence, success for a survivor usually includes being financially compensated for the harms done.
However, individual defendants may try to evade judgment through unlawful conveyances of property, asset transfers, or even filing for bankruptcy, making enforcement difficult for the successful plaintiff.
Collecting on a judgment debt can require a variety of creative tactics to be deployed by a plaintiff’s lawyer, including examinations in aid of execution, writs of seizure and sale or possession, garnishment, or moving to set aside a fraudulent conveyance.
It’s important for plaintiff and defence lawyers to be aware of the provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, which ensure a bankrupt cannot escape a judgment for sexual assault. In urgent situations, interim relief, such as a Mareva injunction (an order preventing a defendant from disposing of their assets to deprive a successful plaintiff of compensation) should also be considered.
This was recently the case in C.A.O. v. Williamson, 2020 ONSC 6793, whereby my colleague Elizabeth Grace and I successfully stopped a defendant’s unlawful dissipation of an asset in the face of a judgment against him for punitive damages.
In June 2020, Justice Salmers granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff against her former music teacher/band leader, Royce Williamson, for historical sexual assaults: C.O. v. Williamson, 2020 ONSC 3874. As a result, the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages against not only the school board but also Williamson.
In October 2020, as a result of steps taken by us to enforce the judgment debt against Williamson, Williamson’s lawyer advised that Williamson planned to dissipate his only known asset, an RRSP. In response, we moved quickly and on an ex parte basis (i.e., without prior notice to Williamson) for an interim interlocutory order in the form of a Mareva injunction to restrain Williamson from disposing of his RRSP.
Justice Edwards granted the emergency order, finding that it was “beyond controversy that Williamson would have collapsed his RRSP and placed those funds beyond the reach of the Plaintiff and the court.” Justice Edwards also fixed costs of the motion against Williamson in the amount of $1000.
In coming to his decision, Justice Edwards laid out the well-known requirements to succeed on such a motion, which, paraphrased, require a plaintiff to:
disclose all information relevant to a court’s ruling;
provide sufficient detail about her claim, the basis for it, and any arguments made against it by the defendant;
provide some proof that there is a risk of the assets in question being removed from the jurisdiction or dissipated;
undertake (i.e., promise) to pay for any harm caused by the injunction if it turns out to have been unjustified; and
provide some proof that the defendant has the assets in question and they are in the court’s jurisdiction
Importantly, Justice Edwards did away with the requirement for the Plaintiff to give an undertaking to pay Williamson damages, relying on the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Business Development Bank of Canada v. Aventura II Properties Inc., and on the unchallenged findings and judgment of Justice Salmers against Williamson. This means an undertaking will not always be required when the moving party has a judgment in their favour.
Justice Edwards emphasized that “it would be grossly unfair to require a victim of sexual assault to provide an undertaking in damages where that Plaintiff has been entirely successful with her claim for damages.”
This decision by Justice Edwards lends support to winning plaintiffs (and also co-defendants with successful crossclaims) who choose to pursue a losing defendant who is not honouring a court award against them for damages arising out of sexual abuse.
In the right circumstances, a Mareva injunction can be an important tool used in aid of execution, to hold a perpetrator of sexual violence accountable, and to ensure justice for survivors.
Contact CARLY Today
Lerners understands you need someone to believe in you. Our consultations are free. Call today and let us help you and your family.
Vicarious Liability: Church Responsible For Sexual Abuse Of Children By Non-Employees Installed To Oversee Orphanage
The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal has further clarified the test for vicarious liability in circumstances where a conventional employment relationship does not exist between a wrongdoer and its principal.
In John Doe (G.E.B. #25) V. The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation Of St. John’s, 2020 NLCA 27, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal has further clarified the test for vicarious liability in circumstances where a conventional employment relationship does not exist between a wrongdoer and its principal.
Briefly, the wrongdoer does not have to be an employee in the traditional sense: the total relationship of the parties is relevant to whether liability will be established. What is key to establishing vicarious liability is whether the principal was in a position to manage the risk posed by the conduct of the wrongdoer.
In this case, four boys living at Mount Cashel orphanage in St. John’s in the 1950s were sexually abused by five members of the Christian Brothers Institute Inc. (the “Brothers”). The Brothers were an organization tasked by the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St. John’s (the “Archdiocese”) with establishing and overseeing the orphanage. The orphanage was on property that was conveyed from a Bishop of the Archdiocese to the Brothers, in trust, for the express purpose of establishing an industrial home and orphanage. The conveyance provided that the property would revert to the Archdiocese if it ceased to be used for this purpose.
Operational funding for the orphanage came from several sources, including the Archdiocese. In 1999, the four boys claimed against the Archdiocese and the Brothers for damages resulting from the sexual abuse they suffered while living at the orphanage. The plaintiffs alleged that the Archdiocese was vicariously liable for the sexual abuse perpetrated by the Brothers as a result of the close relationship between the two organizations. The Archdiocese did not dispute that the sexual abuse had occurred. Instead, it argued that it was not vicariously liable for the actions of the Brothers.
In March 2018, Faour J. for the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against the Archdiocese because of a lack of evidence that there was a sufficiently close relationship between the Archdiocese and the Brothers to support a finding of vicarious liability. The plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador, allowing the plaintiffs appeal, sets aside the trial judge’s decision, and determines that the Archdiocese is vicariously liable for the Brothers’ abuse.
The Court finds that the trial judge erred in his characterization of the doctrine of vicarious liability, particularly by limiting the doctrine to issues such as employment and control of day-to-day operations. By doing so, the trial judge misapplied the law to the facts at hand. The Court emphasizes the importance of considering all of the evidence, taken together, when determining whether vicarious liability is met in a case, and states that in this case, the trial judge failed to do so.
The Court lays out the well-established approach for determining whether a party is vicariously liable for the acts of a wrongdoer. First, a court must determine if any precedents conclusively decide the case. If so, the analysis ends. If no precedent exists, then a court must answer the following questions:
does a sufficiently close relationship exist between the wrongdoer and the principal as to make a claim for vicarious liability appropriate?
is the wrongful act of the wrongdoer sufficiently related to the conduct authorized by the principal to justify the imposition of vicarious liability?
If the answer to both is yes, then vicariously liability shall be imposed upon the principal.
When assessing the closeness of the relationship between the wrongdoer and the principal, the Court emphasizes that it is the total relationship between the parties that must be considered. A wrongdoer need not be an employee of the principal to impose vicarious liability on the principal. When assessing whether the wrongful act of the wrongdoer is sufficiently related to the conduct authorized by the principal, a court must consider whether the principal was in a position to manage the risk posed by the conduct of the wrongdoer.
In this case, the Court finds evidence to support the fact that the Archdiocese not only established the orphanage, but played an ongoing role in administering, servicing, operating, and financially supporting it. The Court is clear that the Archdiocese is not immunized from responsibility due to some internal structure of the Brothers – the “Archdiocese cannot simply install the Brothers and assign them work and then walk away, especially because the Archdiocese continued to exercise authority over the Brothers and take responsibility for the orphanage” (at para 90).
The Court makes clear in this case that an organization will be vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of a wrongdoer where a sufficiently close relationship exists between the wrongdoer and the organization and the wrongful acts are sufficiently related to the conduct authorized by the organization. It is not necessary that a wrongdoer be an employee of the organization in the traditional sense, but rather, it is the total relationship of the parties that will determine the proximity between the parties.
In the big picture, vicarious liability is a legal tool animated by twin policy objectives:
Fairly compensating victims; and
Deterring future harms.
It is applicable in cases where the principal has the power to shape the way the wrongdoer conducts its business or does their job. The power held by the principal, along with the control it may exert over the wrongdoer, is what underpins the fairness of allowing liability for behaviour the principal may not have known about and would not have approved.
By confirming that vicarious liability may be found outside the formal employment relationship, the Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal speaks to the substance of this issue. Having found that the Archdiocese had the power to shape the way the Brothers operated the orphanage, the Court’s decision to impose vicarious liability supports the policy objectives of the vicarious liability doctrine.
The Archdiocese has applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal the Court’s decision.
Contact CARLY Today
Lerners understands you need someone to believe in you. Our consultations are free. Call today and let us help you and your family.