Plaintiff alleged intentional tort of assault and battery via pipe wrench
After assessing a motion for default judgment, the Ontario Superior Court awarded a total of $102,965.8 to a plaintiff alleging injuries from a road rage incident involving a defendant located through a licence plate search.
On Jan. 11, 2022, the defendant in Murad v. Paul, 2026 ONSC 4902, exited from a stopped vehicle. With a pipe wrench, the defendant shattered the driver’s door window of the plaintiff’s vehicle and hit the plaintiff.
The plaintiff took a picture of the licence plate of the defendant’s vehicle.
Alleging the intentional tort of assault and battery, the plaintiff moved for a default judgment.
On Mar. 21, 2025, Justice Koehnen directed the hearing of the matter as an in-writing default judgment and the service of his endorsement, the motion record, the noting in default, and the requested form of judgment.
According to an affidavit of service sworn last Apr. 2, service occurred via regular mail to an address found via a January 2023 licence plate search. The server left a copy of the statement of claim with a woman at the address associated with the licence plate.
The plaintiff’s counsel deposed that:
In connection with general damages, the plaintiff’s counsel asked for an award ranging from $60,000–90,000 based on prior Ontario cases. The plaintiff’s medical evidence included:
Regarding special damages, the plaintiff gave a copy of the subrogated Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) claim amounting to $390.40.
In a claim for lost income, the plaintiff alleged a loss of $10,000–20,000. He alleged that he was an Uber driver who missed work for 90 days after the incident.
The plaintiff also requested punitive damages.
Upon interpreting the directions, Justice Grant Dow of the Ontario Superior Court found that Justice Koehnen had asked for personal service, likely to save court time for hearing any future motion to set aside the judgment based on the defendant’s lack of knowledge.
Considering the lack of personal service, Dow acknowledged that he might have adjourned or dismissed the motion for a default judgment, without prejudice to its renewal with better evidence of actual service on the defendant.
However, Dow did not adjourn or dismiss the plaintiff’s motion upon accepting the statements by his counsel. Dow said the failure to defend the action and the noting in default led to admissions to the allegations in the statement of claim.
Justice Dow awarded general damages of $60,000, which was at the low end of the requested amount, given that the medical evidence lacked enough detail or supporting material.
For a complaint of chronic right ear buzzing with 40 percent hearing loss, the evidence stated that an “ENT in Egypt” saw the plaintiff, without documentation or an explanation from the medical professional who had assessed him.
Justice Dow fixed punitive damages at $15,000. He ruled that the defendant’s conduct was reprehensible and satisfied the criteria in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18. The judge noted the lack of any conviction under the Criminal Code, 1985.
For special damages, Justice Dow awarded the requested amount of $390.40, which aligned with the treatment records and the providers identified.
Justice Dow rejected the claim for loss of income due to insufficient details in the records, including details on employment insurance and other deductible collateral benefits.
Based on income tax summaries from 2020–22, the judge noted that the plaintiff’s reported annual gross income went from $22,224 in 2020, to $9,575 in 2021, to $12,098 in 2022, without an explanation for the drop in income.
Justice Dow calculated pre-judgment interest at $16,862.42 for 2,053 days from Jan. 11, 2022, when the cause of action arose, to the date of the order. The judge used the five percent annual rate for non-pecuniary damages for personal injury.
Justice Dow fixed substantial indemnity costs at $10,712.98, including fees, harmonized sales tax (HST), and disbursements. In accordance with the costs outline, the judge accepted the time spent, the hourly rates claimed, and the disbursements proposed.
Here are some other recent decisions involving assault and/or battery claims in Ontario.
On Aug. 12, the Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal did not find a man injured during an assault at a carjacking entitled to the benefits he claimed because the incident was not an accident as defined in s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
While acknowledging that the trial judge erred by reversing the burden of proof on consent in a sexual battery action, the Ontario Court of Appeal issued a July 28 decision seeing no substantial wrong or a miscarriage of justice meriting a new trial.
On Feb. 10, the Superior Court dismissed an application filed by a tenant who alleged that police officers had unlawfully arrested and used excessive force against her when responding to a call from her landlady, who claimed the tenant had assaulted her.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest personal injury law news on the main page!
