LAWYER INSIGHTS
Our sexual assault and abuse lawyers share their insights to help you move forward.
Pre-Judgment Interest Developments In The Historical Sexual Abuse Context
Pre-judgment interest (“PJI”) on damages in historical sexual abuse cases involving plaintiffs who seek compensation for wrongs perpetrated against them years and sometimes decades earlier has long been a contentious issue. At what point in time should interest start to accrue, and at what rate?
Pre-judgment interest (“PJI”) on damages in historical sexual abuse cases involving plaintiffs who seek compensation for wrongs perpetrated against them years and sometimes decades earlier has long been a contentious issue. At what point in time should interest start to accrue, and at what rate?
Two recent Ontario court decisions involving adult plaintiffs suing for childhood sexual assault offer answers to these two sometimes vexing questions.
In L.R. v. S.P., 2019 ONSC 1737, the trial judge considered the different approaches that courts have used in the past to determine when a cause of action arises, and thus, when PJI should start to run. These approaches yield different starting points for the calculation of interest which, in a historical claim, can yield hugely discrepant amounts. For example, if the date of the abuse is used, then the interest will be far greater than if the date the action was started is used.
The court in L.R. v. S.P. acknowledged that the date when a claim is reasonably discoverable – i.e., when the plaintiff was reasonably capable of discovering the wrongful nature of the defendant’s conduct and that this misconduct caused harm – is the most common approach for determining when the cause of action arose. The presumption in sexual abuse cases is that this discovery by the plaintiff does not usually happen until the plaintiff receives some sort of therapy or treatment, although this presumption can be rebutted by case-specific circumstances that support a different date (earlier or later).
Once the date for calculating interest is determined, the interest rate for calculating PJI must be decided. In a historical sexual abuse case, where interest may run for potentially decades, the rate of interest can make a significant difference to the outcome. Sections 127 and 128 of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act define what constitutes the PJI rate and how it is to be calculated. For non-pecuniary loss claims for personal injury (i.e., general and aggravated damages), Rule 53.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in Ontario fixes the default PJI rate at 5% per year.
However, s. 130(1) of the Courts of Justice Act gives the court a wide discretionary berth to deviate, where it considers it just to do so, from awarding the interest otherwise calculable and owing by operation of ss. 127 and 128 of and Rule 53.10. Where a court does deviate, it must take into account the various considerations set out in s. 130(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, including changes in market interest rates and the circumstances of the case, among a myriad of other factors.
The Ontario Court of Appeal in MacLeod v. Marshall, 2019 ONCA 842, a historical clergy sexual abuse case, recently allowed an appeal from the trial judge’s award of PJI on non-pecuniary damages at the rate of 5% as prescribed by Rule 53.10, finding that the rate of 1.3% should have been used instead based on much lower market interest rates during the relevant time period.
Since interest rates have varied significantly over time, with a high of over 13% in 1990 to a low of 0.5% during parts of 2009 and 2010, one can expect to see much closer attention being given to dates and rates for the calculation of PJI in historical sexual assault cases. Arguments that rates should be lowered from, for example, the default 5% rate prescribed by Rule 53.10, are likely to be met with arguments that the date from which interest should be calculated is not when notice of the claim was given, but rather, a much earlier date when the plaintiff, either through independent means or with assistance from others, connected the wrong to the harms. Where the plaintiff disclosed the abuse to the wrongdoer, to an organization or employer associated with the wrongdoer, to authorities such as police, or to third parties like a doctor or therapist, then there will be evidence of an earlier date when the cause of action arose.
Lawyers for plaintiffs and defendants alike need to give these arguments careful consideration before deciding what course to pursue in terms of date and rate for PJI because the implications for their respective clients can be significant.
Contact ELIZABETH Today
Lerners understands you need someone to believe in you. Our consultations are free. Call today and let us help you and your family.
Lower Threshold For Proving Income Loss In Cases Involving Childhood Sexual Abuse And Injury
The Ontario Court of Appeal in its October 25, 2019 decision in MacLeod v. Marshall, 2019 ONCA 842 has clarified that when a minor is injured and later, in adulthood, sues for compensation, they need not prove their past loss of income on the usual balance of probabilities standard.
The Ontario Court of Appeal in its October 25, 2019 decision in MacLeod v. Marshall, 2019 ONCA 842 has clarified that when a minor is injured and later, in adulthood, sues for compensation, they need not prove their past loss of income on the usual balance of probabilities standard. Instead, because at the time of the incidents causing injury the plaintiff was too young to have an established pattern of earnings, the plaintiff need only prove their income loss on the standard of whether there was a “real and substantial possibility” that they would have achieved the claimed earnings but for the incidents.
This clarification of the law has particular application in the historical childhood sexual abuse context where adult plaintiffs seek compensation for harms and losses resulting from assaults perpetrated on them when they were minors. As it turns out, this was precisely what was at issue in the MacLeod v. Marshall case, which involved abuse by a priest against the plaintiff when he was only a child.
Since all income losses that were claimed occurred after the abuse, all such losses were hypothetical in the sense that they were earnings the plaintiff claimed he would have had if he had not been abused. The Court of Appeal therefore held they needed only to be proven on the lower standard of proof, “realistic and substantial possibility”.
The Court of Appeal explained that, once wrongdoing has been established, income loss is to be quantified based on the following analysis. First, consideration needs to be given to what economic opportunities the plaintiff might have had if not abused. Second, consideration needs to be given to what further income the plaintiff could have earned, if any, than what he or she actually earned. Third, the percentage chance that the plaintiff would indeed have earned that additional income, taking into account positive and negative contingencies, must be determined.
This clarification of the law by an appellate court is important because, for too long, plaintiffs in historical sexual assault cases have been met with the objection by defendants that their income loss claims are far too speculative to be recognized as legitimate. The defence argument is usually that, because they were so young when the abuse occurred, it cannot possibly be known what their career paths would have entailed without the abuse. Therefore, they should receive nothing for loss of income, or only a very modest amount to reflect a loss of opportunity or competitive advantage.
The Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision provides a principled basis on which to resist such arguments, but also guidance about the kind of evidence a plaintiff with a claim based on childhood incidents must put forward to succeed with respect to past loss of income. The fact the Court of Appeal in MacLeod v. Marshall declined to interfere with a jury award for combined past and future income loss of almost $1.6 million, gives further credence to the argument that income loss claims in the historical sexual abuse context are ones that deserve to be taken seriously. Defendants and insurers should expect to see many more such claims being advanced. Going forward, Plaintiffs will be less willing to compromise on these claims in the course of settlement negotiations.
Contact ELIZABETH Today
Lerners understands you need someone to believe in you. Our consultations are free. Call today and let us help you and your family.
Landmark Ruling in Sexual Assault – Ontario Court Confirms No ‘Cap’ On Damages For Pain and Suffering
It has long been recognized that the policy reasons for a ‘cap’ in catastrophic personal injury cases that result from accidents and negligent conduct simply do not apply to intentional misconduct like sexual assault, which is a distinctive wrong that causes unique harms and injuries.
Concluding the sexual abuse and its impacts were “at the upper end of the worst-case scale,” an Ontario court has awarded a plaintiff $400,000 for non-pecuniary damages: D.S. v. Quesnelle, 2019 ONSC 3230. From ages 5 to 10, the plaintiff had endured horrendous weekly sexual assaults by his stepfather.
In making this award for pain and suffering, the court expressly chose not to be restricted by the ‘cap’ on non-pecuniary damages that the Supreme Court of Canada in its 1978 trilogy of decisions said should apply in catastrophic personal injury cases. This cap was set at $100,000 in 1978, but adjusted for inflation, it amounts to $368,000 in 2019 dollars.
It has long been recognized that the policy reasons for a ‘cap’ in catastrophic personal injury cases that result from accidents and negligent conduct simply do not apply to intentional misconduct like sexual assault, which is a distinctive wrong that causes unique harms and injuries. Unlike other unlawful conduct, sexual assault is a targeted and inherently violent form of abuse of power that humiliates, degrades and violates the dignity of those who experience it.
Notwithstanding its decision to introduce a ‘cap’ into Canadian law, the Supreme Court of Canada has accepted that there are circumstances in which it will not apply. For example, in the defamation context, there is no arbitrary limit on what a person who has suffered damage to reputation and dignity may be awarded as non-pecuniary damages: Hill v. Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130.
In 1996, the British Columbia Court of Appeal extended the exception to a case of incest by a father against his daughter, finding the policy justifications for the ‘cap’ simply did not apply: S.F. v. F.G.C., 1996 CanLII 6597 (B.C.C.A.). Unlike with catastrophic personal injury, there is little risk that a plaintiff, who has been sexually assaulted and suffered devastating psychological harms as a result, will be ‘overcompensated’ because of already generous awards under pecuniary heads of damage, such as loss of earning capacity or cost of care, that are intended to provide lifetime economic security. Nor are awards in sexual assault cases ones that could negatively impact the public purse or cause enormous increases in insurance premiums, both concerns that informed the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision to introduce a ‘cap’ on non-pecuniary damages for personal injury.
And yet it took more than two decades for an Ontario court to address the appropriateness of the ‘cap’ in the sexual abuse context. With the release of the decision in D.S. v. Quesnelle, we now have in Ontario an unequivocal statement that the ‘cap’ should not constrain damages for pain and suffering for sexual abuse, and an award that actually exceeds the amount of the cap. This is consistent with the trend towards greater recognition by society and by our courts of the depth of the harms caused by sexual violation and exploitation. While the claim in D.S. v. Quesnelle was undefended, the court’s decision should help pave the way for awards that reflect the full extent of the wrongs perpetrated and their consequences on individual survivors of sexual abuse. Courts need not feel artificially constrained by precedents that have either explicitly or implicitly been informed by the ‘cap’, or by the ‘cap’ itself.
Contact ELIZABETH Today
Lerners understands you need someone to believe in you. Our consultations are free. Call today and let us help you and your family.