ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: CV-09-096918-00

DATE: 2013-12-09

BETWEEN:

Evelyn Buck

Plaintiff

– and –

Phyllis Morris, Evelina MacEachern, Wendy Gaertner, Stephen Granger, John Gallo, Al Wilson, Metroland

Defendants

Kevin L. MacDonald and Jamie M. Sanderson, for the Plaintiff

David G. Boghosian and Luciana Amaral, for the Defendants Phyllis Morris, Evelina MacEachern, Wendy Gaertner, Stephen Granger, John Gallo, and Al Wilson

HEARD: December 4, 2013

REASONS FOR DECISION

EDWARDS j.:

[1] Plaintiff’s counsel has raised a concern as to whether or not the questions that will be given to the jury should be broken down into the constituent damages that are referenced in my charge to the jury. Specifically, objection is taken with respect to separate questions going to the jury for general damages, contemptuous damages, and nominal damages. It is submitted that the only questions that should be going to the jury with respect to damages are questions concerning general damages, aggravated, and punitive damages.

[2] Defence counsel takes the position that as the charge relates to general damages, nominal damages, and contemptuous damages, that the jury should be specifically directed to those three types of damages when answering the questions put to them.

[3] I can see no prejudice to the plaintiff in having the jury focus in on the types of damages that they can be called upon to award. If the jury is to be properly charged as it will be with respect to general damages as well as nominal and contemptuous damages it seems to me that there is no reason why the questions posed to the jury should not also reflect that as well.

Justice M.L. Edwards

Released: December 9, 2013