Amount covers non-pecuniary and special damages, plus medical, security, moving costs
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has awarded an injured party total damages of $273,294.03, upon finding that she suffered significant physical and psychological pain and suffering due to her neighbor’s assault.
In Smith v. Cammack, 2025 ONSC 3162, the parties used to be neighbors with a positive relationship spanning nearly two decades. A problem arose in 2020 after the local authorities received a complaint about the defendant’s yard and asked him to clean it.
The defendant, believing that the plaintiff had made the complaint, started verbally abusing and intimidating her. In April 2021, while she was tending to the garden in her yard, he approached her from behind and kicked the back of her head.
The plaintiff rolled over. The defendant stood over her and repeatedly kicked and punched her. He only halted when the neighbors heard her calling for help and arrived at her yard. While walking away, the defendant shouted, “I'm not done with you yet.”
An ambulance took the plaintiff to the hospital. Her injuries included lacerations and bruises on her arms, back, neck, and torso; severe swelling, bruising, and bleeding on her face; bleeding in her ears and nose; and swollen eyes. She also experienced blurred vision and difficulties breathing and eating.
In January 2022, the defendant pleaded guilty before the court. He received a conviction for assault causing bodily harm and a sentence of six months’ incarceration plus two years’ probation.
While the defendant was in prison, the plaintiff prepared to sell her house, started looking for a new residence in an undisclosed area, and moved in September 2022.
In the present case, the plaintiff requested general, aggravated, and special damages, including past medical, security, and moving costs.
The Ontario Superior Court’s award included:
The court also awarded prejudgment and postjudgment interest.
Regarding non-pecuniary damages, the plaintiff claimed $200,000. The court considered the context of the assault in assessing non-pecuniary damages, rather than deeming aggravated damages a distinct category.
The court noted that the plaintiff’s life was engaged, active, self-sufficient, and community-oriented before the incident. However, according to the court, she has since left her home and neighborhood and become fearful, isolated, and anxious.
The court ruled that the plaintiff doubtlessly suffered from a seriously impaired quality of life, an irreversibly damaged sense of security, debilitating psychological impacts, diminished relationships, and a reduced activity level due to the assault.
The court called the incident a shocking and senseless attack and considered certain aggravating factors in calculating the plaintiff’s non-pecuniary damages. Specifically, the court found that the defendant:
The court then tackled special damages. First, the court awarded medical expenses of $183.02 for the plaintiff’s broken glasses, dental and X-ray examinations, and ambulance costs.
Second, the court awarded security monitoring costs of $1,920, representing 48 months of security system services at $40 per month. The court noted that the plaintiff asked police to perform a security check of her house.
Police suggested that the plaintiff get a security system and move because no other measures would ensure her protection from another brazen attack from a neighbor in the middle of the day.
Third, the court awarded moving-related costs of $77,951.01, comprising $1,600 for repairs and upgrades; $2,386.56 for moving; $55,087.50 in commissions; $1,606.37 in legal fees for the purchase; and $17,270.58 in legal fees and taxes for the sale.
Next, the court addressed future costs. The court awarded $12,000 for future psychological care, representing 48 sessions at $250 per session, as recommended by a licensed clinical psychologist and neuropsychologist.
The court noted that the psychologist, who examined the plaintiff, testified that psychotherapy could help her manage her post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms.
Regarding future monitoring costs, the court granted the request for $6,240 for future monitoring costs, representing $40 per month for 13 years. The court found a real and substantial risk that the plaintiff would need that security. The court added that she had calculated these costs very conservatively.
