Parents who cared for him after his jaw was wired shut get Family Law Act damages
The Ontario Superior Court has awarded $75,000 in general damages to a then-17-year-old plaintiff who had to undergo jaw surgery after an assault by a then-34-year-old man who accused him of being a paedophile for talking to fellow teenagers.
On Dec. 31, 2021, Jakub was celebrating New Year’s Eve with his parents at a Blue Mountain cottage. The 17-year-old and his parents were the plaintiffs in Armstrong et al v. Coppin, 2026 ONSC 4400.
After dinner, Jakub and his friends went to the Village at Blue Mountain to view the fireworks.
The group of friends began speaking to some girls. Even though they were all teenagers, the 34-year-old defendant accused the friends of being paedophiles.
The defendant approached Jakub, pushed him against a fence, slapped him, and punched him repeatedly. Jakub unsuccessfully attempted to escape and fell to the ground at some point. His friend pulled him up.
After they got back, Jakub’s parents drove him to Collingwood Marine Hospital in Barrie. Jakub sustained:
Collingwood referred Jakub to Sunnybrook Hospital, which he visited the following morning. After additional scans, Sunnybrook confirmed his broken jaw.
On Jan. 4, 2022, Jakub had jaw surgery at Markham Stouffville Hospital, which placed a titanium plate in his jaw and wired it shut. For two months, he could not eat solid food.
The defendant pleaded guilty to the criminal charge of assault.
In a civil claim, Jakub sought damages for negligence and battery. Meanwhile, in a claim under Ontario’s Family Law Act, 1990 (FLA), his parents also requested damages.
Finding no issue regarding the defendant’s liability, the court focused solely on the question of damages.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded the plaintiffs the following amounts:
In fixing Jakub’s damages, the Superior Court described the incident as a “vicious attack on a young boy.” The court found a significant and continuing physical and emotional impact on Jakub.
The Superior Court considered the requested hourly remuneration rate of $20 reasonable. For the mother, the court fixed damages at:
For the father, awarded damages of:
The Superior Court declined to award damages for mental distress as an incident of negligence.
The court acknowledged that Jakub’s parents had a reason to be upset and worried because their son experienced an assault and because they did not want to visit their cottage anymore.
However, given the brief and unparticularized evidence, the court did not see a serious and prolonged mental disturbance or the proximity needed for such a claim between the defendant and Jakub’s parents.
The Superior Court awarded the following out-of-pocket expenses as claimed by Jakub’s parents:
Based on a lack of specific evidence, the court denied the parents’ requested $1,521 expenditure for groceries.
Here are some other Ontario cases involving battery and assault.
While acknowledging that a 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 finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice meriting a new trial.
The Ontario Superior Court made a Feb. 10 decision denying a tenant’s application alleging that police officers had unlawfully arrested and used excessive force against her when responding to a call from her landlady, who claimed that the tenant had assaulted her.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest personal injury law news on the main page!
