Our new BC Family Law Act has a focus of protecting spouses and their children as well as other family members from family violence. In cases where family violence occurs there can be criminal penalties, protection orders and even monetary damages for spousal assault. These civil claims for money compensation are called BC spousal assault damages or spousal assault tort cases.
Damage claims for spousal assault are usually heard together with support, custody and property relief. Our experienced family lawyers can help protect you from and and compensate you for BC spousal assault injuries.
BC Spousal Assault Damages Awards Depend On Severity of Assault
In the recent BC spousal Assault Damages case of Dhillon v Gaba the court dealt with a spousal assault claim by a wife against her husband where:
[3] The assault alleged by the claimant is particularized as follows:
- He threw shoes at her.
- He pushed her against the wall so that her head hit the wall and he then grabbed her arm tightly so that it hurt.
- He tried to choke her and she hid in the bathroom as she feared him.
- He pushed and slapped her. He head butted her. He pushed her into a cupboard. He tried to choke her. He grabbed her right breast and dug his nails in and did the same to her buttocks.
- He pulled her hair, slapped her, hit her face and choked her. He hit her head against the headboards of the bed.
- He tried to force her to have sex with him.
How Does the Judge Decide The Right Money Award For BC Spousal Assault Damages Cases?
In reviewing the law and assessing liability (did the wife prove it happened) and quantum (what is the right amount of money to compensate her for her injuries) the court will review the facts of the assault to see if the assault happened on a balance of probabilities and then through the law and prior cases of spousal assault which the Court takes guidance from:
[72] The tort of battery is a form of trespass against the person. It is aimed at protecting the individual’s personal autonomy. It consists in the direct, intentional application of force to another person’s body in a manner that, in the view of a reasonable person, is harmful or offensive: see Non-Marine Underwriters, Lloyd’s of London v. Scalera, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 551.
[73] Despite the respondent’s denials, I am satisfied on the evidence that the claimant was assaulted in the manner she described. The respondent’s conduct constitutes the tort of battery.
[74] I turn then to the assessment of damages. The claimant does not claim for past or future wage loss or for special damages. She testified that she made some attempts to obtain counseling, but I find that she did not pursue that option with vigour. She testified that she suffered some pain and discomfort, but I find that it was relatively minor and short-lived. She had some relatively superficial bruising, but it quickly faded. I find that the primary effect on the claimant from the respondent’s conduct was not pain and suffering, but rather, humiliation and embarrassment. She is entitled to general damages for the violation of her personal autonomy.
[75] Counsel for the claimant referred to a number of cases to illustrate the possible range of damages for spousal assaults. These include:
Megeval v. Megeval, 1997 CanLII 3721 (B.C.S.C): Total damages $139,150;
H. v. H., 1998 CanLII 4129 (B.C.S.C.): Total damages $38,875;
L.N.S. v. W.M.K., 1999 ABQB 478: Total damages $19,000;
Valenti v. Valenti, [1996] O.J. No. 522 (Ont. Ct. J. (Gen. Div.)): Total damages $15,000;
K.R.W. v. S.A.W., 2003 BCSC 522: Total damages $10,000;
Wandich v. Viele (2002) 24 R.F.L. (5th) 427 (Ont. S.C.J.): Total damages $5,000;
R.Y.W. v. D.W.W., 2013 BCSC 472: Total damages $2,000;
Kovacic v. Kovacic, 1998 CanLII 1083 (B.C.S.C.): Total damages $2,000.
[76] The first five of these cases are of little assistance, as the facts are so far removed from those in the case at bar. These five cases involved much more serious assaults, which caused much greater harm to the victim. For example, in Megeval, the victim was left with a permanent disability resulting in significant past and future wage loss. In H. v. H., the victim was left with a permanent deformity. In L.N.S. v. W.M.K., the assaults continued over a period of several years, causing the victim to contemplate suicide. In Valenti, the victim’s face was so bruised and swollen that both her eyes were swollen shut for a few days. Her husband was convicted of assault causing bodily harm and sentenced to five months imprisonment. In K.R.W. v. S.A.W., the victim alleged that she was stabbed in the groin with a fork, threatened with knives, and forced to have intercourse when she was injured in childbirth. The trial judge found that there was more than one assault, and one of them consisted of “pulling her to a standing position by her hair, dragging her across a coffee table, pushing her in a bedroom, causing bruises to her legs and abdomen and tearing loose at least two pieces of her hair [leaving] her with a bloody, exposed scalp in at least two places.”
[77] The cases most similar to the case at bar are Kovacic and R.Y.W. v. D.W.W. In the latter case, Sigurdson J. observed that the most significant effect of the battery was that it caused the victim to be frightened and humiliated. As in those cases, I award the claimant here a total of $2,000 for general and aggravated damages.
Family Violence cannot be tolerated. If you are injured or if you have been falsely accused of spousal assault you need to speak to a MacLean Family Law Lawyer today. Call us toll free across BC at 1-877-602-9900.
