Prosecuting civil tort claims in context of family proceedings following Ahluwalia appeal
This article was originally published by Law360 Canada, part of LexisNexis Canada Inc.
Since the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia , 2023 ONCA 476, (Ahluwalia), in which the creation of a new tort of family violence was rejected as unnecessary because existing torts are sufficient, there has been some uncertainty about how civil claims arising from intimate partner violence (IPV) and abuse should be dealt with in the context of family law proceedings.
This is not the last word on the tort of family violence, as the Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal decision. Regardless of the final outcome in Ahluwalia, issues surrounding how to most effectively and efficiently prosecute civil tort claims in the context of family proceedings will remain a live issue. As the Ontario Court of Appeal stated in paragraph 1 of Ahluwalia:
“Intimate partner violence is a pervasive social problem. It takes many forms, including physical violence, psychological abuse, financial abuse and intimidation. In Canada, nearly half of women and a third of men have experienced intimate partner violence and rates are on the rise. What was once thought to be a private matter is now properly recognized for its widespread and intergenerational effects.”
It is clear, based on the pervasiveness of IPV and the developing law in response, that we will continue to see an increase in the number of civil tort claims being pursued by survivors of IPV, particularly once the relationship ends and family law proceedings are initiated.
In the recent decision of Barreto v. Salema, 2024 ONSC 4972 (Barreto), Justice Susan Vella of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice provides useful guidance on how these cases should be approached and valuable insight into how they will be viewed and assessed by the court.
Factual background in Barreto
Liesl Ana Barreto (the wife) and Savio Salema (the husband) were married in 2003 and separated in 2020, with no children of the marriage. A nine-day hybrid trial of the family law and tort matters proceeded before Justice Vella in January and February 2024. The family law issues to be decided included divorce, spousal support, and disposition of the matrimonial home. Also at issue were tort claims raised by the wife, which included intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of public disclosure of private facts and confidence, and assault and battery.
The term “gaslighting” was used by the wife to describe the husband’s pattern of behaviour, which included secretly communicating to her family in India that she was violent, abusive, mentally ill, and suicidal. The husband also had a pattern of telling the wife that she was the one who abused him, and that he used force against her only to protect himself from her physical abuse of him and to stop her from self-harming. Justice Vella adopted the “gaslighting” terminology as a descriptive term only.
Preliminary considerations and framework
In setting out the framework for her decision, Justice Vella confirmed, as in Ahluwalia, that where family and civil proceedings are heard together, the trial judge should start with a determination of the financial claims arising from the marriage, specifically beginning with any of those arising from statute, before assessing damages for the tort claims. This sequence considers that statutory entitlements may inform the damages arising from the IPV-related tort damages assessment.
Justice Vella accordingly began by considering the family law claims raised by both the wife and the husband, the findings of which are largely irrelevant to the purpose of this article. Turning next to the civil claims, Justice Vella first provided guidance on how to approach credibility assessments in claims involving IPV and then addressed a number of dangerous myths about IPV that must be dispelled.
Regarding the credibility assessment, Justice Vella adopted “the framework outlined in Faryna v. Chorny, [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354 ... and developed in subsequent cases, recognizing that trauma can impact one’s ability to recount the traumatic incidents” (Barreto, para. 161). Justice Vella also highlighted the importance of corroborating evidence from witnesses and contemporaneous documentary evidence.
The myths about IPV that Justice Vella said must be dispelled include:
1. the partner did not leave the relationship until now and, therefore, there was no abuse or mistreatment;
2. the partner must have consented to the offensive treatment because she/he/they did not leave the intimate relationship;
3. the partner did not complain to anyone in authority, his/her/their family, or others of the offensive treatment or abuse and, therefore, it did not happen; and
4. the partner did not behave in a certain manner in response to the alleged abuse or mistreatment and therefore cannot be believed. (Barreto, para. 166)
Liability analysis
With these considerations in mind, Justice Vella assessed the evidence presented by both sides and found the wife’s version of events to be more believable than the husband’s. The wife called witnesses who corroborated her version of events (family members, friends, therapist) and produced contemporaneous documentary evidence to support her claims (texts, emails, etc.).
The trial judge did not find the husband to be a credible or believable witness — his versions of events were vague and inconsistent. The trial judge also drew an adverse inference against the husband because he failed to call numerous witnesses whom he claimed supported his version of events and his defence of the wife’s claims.
Ultimately, Justice Vella found that the wife satisfied the elements of the tort of assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, her claim for public disclosure of private facts was dismissed because the allegations under this tort were better addressed by intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Damages
Justice Vella began her damages assessment by reviewing the function of general and aggravated damages and the factors to be considered in determining the appropriate quantum. (Barreto, paras. 432–434)
It is acknowledged that damages arising from claims of IPV have been historically low, but “the courts’ recognition of the insidious harms by IPV is evolving much like it did with respect to civil sexual assault claims, which were originally very modest but have evolved considerably” (Barreto, paras. 436–437). Accordingly, Justice Vella stated that reference to civil sexual assault damages awards is helpful as a guide because in both types of cases, “the dominant harms experienced generally tend to be psychological and accompanied by a betrayal of trust” (Barreto, para. 440).
Justice Vella cited the range of non-pecuniary/general damages for adult-on-adult sexual assault set out in Zando v. Ali, 2018 ONCA 680 of $144,000 to $290,000 in 2017 dollars, “which provides a useful general framework for how to assess psychological impacts committed within a betrayal of trust.” (Barreto, paras. 440–441) With inflation adjusted for 2024 dollars, the range is $177,357.80 to $357,178.90.
Applying this range to the case at bar, Justice Vella concluded the appropriate general damages award in the case before her was $150,000, $50,000 of which she attributed to aggravated damages in recognizing the “pattern of psychological manipulation perpetrated over a lengthy time by a spouse resulting in a profound betrayal of trust” (Barreto, para. 448).
Also of note is the finding that, although the wife admitted to abuse by her mother in childhood, the wife “showed her resilience to any adverse impacts that mistreatment may have had by excelling in university and her job as a psychologist prior to her marriage” (Barreto, para. 429). In terms of damages causation, Justice Vella found that the harms established by the wife were solely the result of the husband’s abusive conduct.
A punitive damages award was made against the husband in the amount of $10,000, having regard to “the compensation awarded, the reprehensible nature of the misconduct perpetrated, the prevalence of IPV […], the lack of remorse, and the means of Mr. Salema” (Barreto, para. 452). Notably, this award for punitive damages incorporates the principle of deterrence by accounting for the “prevalence of IPV” in general.
We note that in Zunnurain v. Chowdhury, 2024 ONSC 5552, another decision involving civil tort claims in the context of family law proceedings that was released shortly after Barreto, Justice Ranjan Agarwal awarded $200,000 in damages to the wife for assault, battery, and intentional infliction of mental suffering, $175,000 of which was for compensatory and aggravated damages and $25,000 for punitive damages. This award is in line with Justice Vella’s comments about the appropriate range of damages in these cases.
This is part one of a two-part series. Part two will discuss other key takeaways of Barreto v. Salema.
Contact Lerners Today
Lerners understands you need someone to believe in you. Our consultations are free. Call today, and let us help you and your family.