Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Court File No.: CV-22-00690327-0000
Date: 2025-05-28
Between:
Robin Edith Smith, Plaintiff
and
Edward Cammack, Defendant
Appearances:
Ivanna Iwasykiw, for the Plaintiff
Jim Koumarelas, for the Defendant
Heard: May 14 and 15, 2025
Judge: Lorne Brownstone
Reasons for Judgment
Introduction
[1] The parties are former neighbors. They had a positive relationship for close to 20 years. Starting in about 2020, Mr. Cammack began verbally abusing and intimidating Ms. Smith. The behavior escalated and on April 14, 2021, while Ms. Smith was gardening in her backyard, Mr. Cammack violently attacked her. Mr. Cammack approached her from behind and kicked her with full force on the back of the head. As she rolled over, Mr. Cammack stood over her and repeatedly kicked and punched her. It was only when the neighbors heard her cry for help and came upon the scene that Mr. Cammack stopped striking her.
[2] Ms. Smith was taken to hospital. Mr. Cammack was taken into custody and on January 29, 2022, entered a guilty plea and was convicted of assault causing bodily harm. He was sentenced to six months incarceration and two years of probation.
[3] While Mr. Cammack was incarcerated, Ms. Smith prepared her home for sale and began searching for a new home in a new, undisclosed area. On September 1, 2022, she moved.
[4] As a result of the defendant’s failure to provide disclosure or participate in examinations for discovery as ordered by Papageorgiou J., Akazaki J ordered, in February 2025, that the defendant’s defense be struck and that the trial proceed as a damages trial under rule 19.05(4). He ordered that the defendant would be precluded from introducing any evidence without leave of the trial judge. Mr. Cammack did not seek leave to introduce any evidence and proceeded in accordance with the endorsement of Akazaki J., limiting his participation to cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses and arguing his position on damages. Liability is deemed to be admitted.
[5] Ms. Smith claims general and aggravated damages, as well as special damages that include medical, security, and moving costs.
Non-Pecuniary Damages
[6] Ms. Smith claims non-pecuniary damages in the amount of $200,000.
[7] There is no doubt that as a result of Mr. Cammack’s conduct, Ms. Smith has suffered significant pain and suffering, both physically and psychologically.
[8] Ms. Smith was an active member of her tight-knit community and her neighborhood. She had lived in the house in which she was assaulted for decades. She had raised her children there and formed close bonds in the neighborhood. She was a community chaplain and performed various rituals for friends and neighbors. She was involved in the local homeless shelter, and attended various programs offered in the neighborhood. Since her retirement from full-time work in 2010, Ms. Smith was particularly active and involved in her community, centering on her neighbourhood association and her volunteer work at a homeless shelter.
[9] Ms. Smith was also physically active, walking an average of 10 km per day and completing a long hike on the Camino trail. She also worked in her garden daily. Her garden was a source of great pleasure and meaning for her, containing plants and trees that were planted to commemorate special occasions.
[10] Ms. Smith was also the primary caretaker for her aging parents.
[11] Ms. Smith was an excellent neighbor to Mr. Cammack. She supported him in many ways, including by assisting him when he was ill, helping him with employment and disability applications, inviting him to dinner, and contacting his family members when needed. Mr. Cammack would help Ms. Smith with tasks like shoveling her walk.
[12] In the fall of 2020, somebody complained to the local authorities about the state of Mr. Cammack’s yard. He was required to clean it up. He formed the belief that Ms. Smith was the complainant. There is no evidence that this is true, and Ms. Smith has consistently denied making any such complaint.
[13] Mr. Cammack began to engage in aggressive behaviour. He began to shout and swear at Ms. Smith and pace alongside her window outside her house, intending to intimidate her. In March 2021 he stole compost and composters from Ms. Smith’s yard. He frequently trespassed onto her property, shouting profanity and threats on occasion. One of those threats was words to the effect of, “I am not done with you”.
[14] On April 14, 2021, Ms. Smith was gardening in her backyard, on her hands and knees. Mr. Cammack trespassed about 100 feet onto her property, approached her from behind, and kicked her with full force on the back of her head. She rolled over, and he continued to kick and punch her in the head, neck, and upper body while she cried for help.
[15] When some neighbors heard her cries and approached the scene, Mr. Cammack stopped striking her. He calmly walked over to his own yard, yelling at her while he walked away, “I'm not done with you yet”. He got into his truck and drove away.
[16] An ambulance took Ms. Smith to the hospital. Photographs show that she was severely beaten in the face, resulting in severe facial swelling, bruising, and bleeding. Her eyes were swollen shut and she had blurred vision. She suffered numerous lacerations and bruising on her arms, forearms, back, neck, and torso, as well as bleeding in her ears and nose, the latter of which affected her ability to breathe. The bruising and swelling in her jaw and cheeks prohibited her from chewing and eating solid food.
[17] On January 29, 2022, Mr. Cammack pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm in respect of the incident.
[18] Immediately following the assault, Ms. Smith isolated for three months. She felt that she looked like a monster, given the state of her face, and she did not want to distress or scare the important people in her life. This meant that she stopped seeing her parents entirely, even though she was their primary caregiver. Because she did not want to distress them, Ms. Smith never explained to her parents why she stopped seeing them. The fact that she felt she was abandoning her parents, and knowing they felt abandoned by her, caused her profound distress. Her mother fell gravely ill two weeks after the assault and died a few months later.
[19] Once Ms. Smith knew that Mr. Cammack was going to be released from prison and appeared to have no intention to sell his house, she determined that she needed to sell her house to move. Given his actions, his threat that he was not done with her yet, and his refusal to apologize to her or take responsibility when given the opportunity to do so at the criminal sentencing hearing, Ms. Smith understandably felt she had no choice but to move. As she deposed, “I could not live next to my assailant, at the crime scene, surrounded by daily reminders of the attack, especially when he appeared to show no remorse or regret at his sentencing hearing.”
[20] This caused her great distress in several ways. She was leaving her neighborhood and community, of which she had been a significant and important member for decades. She had never planned to leave the neighbourhood. She was leaving her beloved garden, which had great sentimental value prior to the assault. Because she was fearful of Mr. Cammack finding out where she lived, she did not tell her former friends and neighbors, other than a couple of very close old friends, where her home was. She became increasingly isolated.
[21] While Ms. Smith had been on a very low dose of an anti-depressant medication prior to the assault to treat career burnout, she had no psychiatric conditions. Following the assault, she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder with panic attack symptoms. Her symptoms were impairing and significantly impacting her overall quality of life. The dose of her antidepressant medication was increased. She continues to experience intense PTSD symptoms including panic, hypervigilance, flashbacks, anxiety, and symptoms of agoraphobia and depression.
[22] Dr. Jelena King, a licensed clinical psychologist and neuropsychologist, examined Ms. Smith for the litigation. She provided opinion evidence that Ms. Smith’s presentation supports diagnose of severe Major Depressive Disorder and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder. Dr. King opined that Ms. Smith suffers from negative self-appraisals, severe levels of hopelessness, despair, suicidal ideation, recurrent episodes of anxiety, fearful preoccupations, hyperarousal, and intrusive post-traumatic responses. This contrasts sharply to Ms. Smith’s state preceding the assault. Ms. Smith had “no prior history of any significant mental health difficulties, or substance abuse/dependence, except for developing low mood reactive to adjusting to retirement when she was 60, that was well managed with antidepressant medication.” Dr. King testified that Ms. Smith had a pervasive sense of lack of safety and security. She was suffering from a general mistrust in relationships.
[23] Ms. Smith’s family doctor, Dr. Castillo, provided similar evidence. She testified that Ms. Smith had been a confident and active retiree, with a healthy and social lifestyle prior to the assault. Ms. Smith had been treated on a low dose antidepressant which was managing depressive symptoms related to adjusting to retirement. In addition to other diagnoses, including PTSD, Dr. Castillo diagnosed Ms. Smith with a concussion from the assault. She testified that Ms. Smith suffered serious acute mental health concerns after the assault. Dr. Castillo testified that she continues to treat Ms. Smith for chronic ongoing issues secondary to the traumatic incident, including PTSD. Ms. Smith’s antidepressant dose has been significantly increased, but her symptoms remain. While her depression had been well managed before, it has now significantly worsened, and she continues to suffer effects of the assault.
[24] Mr. Cammack suggested that there were other reasons for her psychological distress, namely the move, the loss of a long-term relationship, and the death of her mother in the fall of 2021.
[25] The evidence of Dr. King was that the assault caused profound trauma and distress. Dr. Castillo agreed it was possible that those life events could worsen Ms. Smith’s depression. However, she also testified that Ms. Smith had had many stressors in her life since 2018 but had remained stable; she had the resilience to manage them until the assault, which Dr. Castillo described as “too much for her”.
[26] Drs. King and Castillo were fair, straightforward witnesses. They did not exaggerate their evidence, which was consistent with the other available evidence, including the medical records. I accept their evidence as I have outlined it above.
[27] Mukin Billah, a friend and spiritual advisor of Ms. Smith, also testified. Much of Mr. Billah’s affidavit is hearsay, repeating evidence that came directly, appropriately, from Ms. Smith. I do not rely on that evidence. I do find that Mr. Billah noticed changes in Ms. Smith after the assault, and that he noticed she has become withdrawn and lost the enthusiasm for myriad activities that she used to show.
[28] Marilyn Green, Ms. Smith’s friend, testified to similar effect. I accept her evidence that she saw a change in Ms. Smith from a positive, strong, independent woman to a person who was very unsure of herself, anxious, and nervous, who could not do things she used to enjoy, and was isolated in her home. Ms. Green testified to the devastating impact relocation has had on Ms. Smith.
[29] I accept Ms. Smith’s evidence in full. Her evidence in chief was provided by affidavit, and her testimony in cross-examination only strengthened that evidence. I find that, as outlined in more detail above, the assault caused Ms. Smith significant trauma, that she continues to suffer the effects of the trauma, that the assault has profoundly changed her sense of self and safety, and that the assault has caused her activity and engagement level to reduce dramatically. It It has deeply changed her outlook on life in a negative way.
[30] Ms. Smith put forth cases that awarded non-pecuniary damages with the present value amounts ranging from about $80,000 to $280,000.
[31] Some of the cases consider the damages should be elevated when they occur in the “golden years”, robbing someone of their planned-for retirement life (for example Wilson v. Byrne). It is difficult to compare robbing someone of their golden years to robbing someone of their younger years. I do not directly apply this doctrine, but I do consider the effects of the assault on this specific plaintiff and the dramatic and serious impact on her life, which happens to be in her retirement years. She is likely to live in fear for the rest of her life.
[32] The plaintiff also put forth cases that deal with consequences that have attenuated or improved in whole or in part (for example Currie v. Kikkert, 20222 ONSC 7260; Bras v. Pietraszek); others are ongoing (for example DiGiorgio v. Smardenka). Some were accompanied by ongoing physical limitations (Milicic v. Liberty Entertainment Group, 2019 ONSC 379; James v. Harper, 2010 ONSC 4785; Margeson v. Moreau, 2010 ONSC 6371).
[33] There is no doubt that Ms. Smith’s quality of life has been very significantly impaired by the assault. She has left her home and neighbourhood, become fearful, isolated, and anxious. This is a sharp change from her pre-assault life, which was engaged, active, self-sufficient, and community oriented. Her sense of security is irreparably damaged. She suffers debilitating psychological effects from the assault. She is no longer able to enjoy life as she did before. Her relationships have diminished, her activity level reduced. The consequences are very serious.
[34] Rather than treating aggravated damages as a separate category, I am considering the context of the assault in assessing Ms. Smith’s non-pecuniary damages. Mr. Cammack turned on and violently attacked his friend and neighbor in her garden, which he knew was a place of refuge for her. It was a shocking and senseless attack. He then refused to express any remorse. Instead, he has repeatedly called Ms. Smith a serial liar and a psychopath and threatened that he “will make sure she goes to jail”.
[35] These are aggravating factors in assessing Ms. Smith’s non-pecuniary damages.
[36] Considering all of the above, I fix Ms. Smith’s non-pecuniary damages at $175,000.
Special Damages
[37] Ms. Smith moved at the outset of trial to amend her claim to add special damages claim. Mr. Cammack did not object to this, as he was aware of the special damages claims. Leave to amend the claim was granted.
[38] Ms. Smith claims special damages for past medical costs, past security alarm measures, and moving costs.
[39] The medical costs of $183.02 are to repair her broken glasses, undergo dental examination and X-ray, and ambulance costs. Those are proper special damages claims and shall be awarded.
[40] After the assault, Ms. Smith had the police attend her house to perform a security check. They recommended that she move, since no other measures would protect her from a brazen, midday attack from a neighbor. There were no measures the police could put into place to stop this from recurring and to assure Ms. Smith’s safety. They also recommended that she obtain a security system, which she did at the cost of $40 per month. Ms. Smith seeks special damages for repayment for the security system. These damages are $1,920, representing 48 months of services at $40 per month. These costs are incurred as a direct result of the assault, are supported by the evidence, and are granted.
[41] Ms. Smith also claims costs relating to moving. She says these were caused directly by Mr. Cammack’s assault. She had no plans to move and planned to stay in her home and in her neighbourhood, where she had deep attachments. Given Mr. Cammack’s lack of responsibility and remorse, his ongoing threats that he was not done with her yet, and his plan to return to his home, she felt she had no choice but to move.
[42] Mr. Cammack claims these costs are too remote for him to bear. I disagree.
[43] First, Mr. Cammack suggests that because Ms. Smith had been in contact with Ms. Rasmussen, the real estate agent, for several years prior to the assault, I should reject Ms. Smith’s evidence that she never intended to move.
[44] Ms. Rasmussen clearly and logically explained the contact between her and Ms. Smith that occurred before the assault. Ms. Rasmussen explained that she is a real estate agent in the area. She uses various technology to “cold call” homeowners in the neighborhood to see if they are interested in selling their property. Most people say no. With some people, she is able to strike up a relationship. She continues those relationships, both because she enjoys them and because it is possible that one day, those people might change their mind and decide to move. She struck up such a relationship with Ms. Smith, who told her with certainty that she did not wish to move when Ms. Rasmussen first contacted her several years before the assault. However, they kept in touch. After the assault, it was to Ms. Rasmussen that Ms. Smith turned when she decided she had to move.
[45] I reject the suggestion that Ms. Smith had intended to move at anytime before the assault. The evidence of her rootedness in the neighborhood and in her home was overwhelming. I find that events transpired as Ms. Rasmussen and Ms. Smith described. It was only after the assault that Ms. Smith considered moving. At that time, she contacted Ms. Rasmussen who acted for her in the sale of her home and the purchase of a new one. I find that Ms. Smith had no intention to move before the assault.
[46] Further, Mr. Cammack suggests that Ms. Smith did not need to move and that no one told her to do so. I reject this argument.
[47] After the assault, Ms. Smith had the police attend and do a security check of her house. They recommended that she move, since none of the measures would protect her from a brazen, midday attack from a neighbor. There were no measures the police could put into place to stop this from recurring and assure her safety.
[48] Mr. Cammack brutally assaulted Ms. Smith in her own back yard, her place of refuge, and, far from expressing remorse or apologising, said he was not done with her yet. She has real and understandable fear of him. Dr. King indicated being in her home and garden could be a trigger for her PTSD. The police told her they could not protect her. Her decision to move emanates directly from Mr. Cammack’s conduct. She loved her house, her neighbourhood, her local community, and her garden. She had raised her children in the neighbourhood, had officiated at major life events of local friends and neighbours, participated in local organisations. In short, she had established a robust, community-oriented life and home for herself. She had no plans to move.
[49] For Mr. Cammack to suggest she did not need to move shows he still does not understand the gravity of his actions or their consequences on Ms. Smith.
[50] I find the moving-related costs are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Mr. Cammack’s assault and he is therefore liable for them.
[51] The moving costs total $77,951.01, comprised of $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 on the sale. These are supported by the evidence and shall be awarded.
[52] Further, the Ministry of Health has a subrogated claim of $1,271.47 which shall be ordered.
Future Care Costs
[53] Ms. Smith claims future care costs for psychotherapy. As these are future costs, she must prove there is a real and substantial risk she will require this care.
[54] Dr. King testified that psychotherapy could assist Ms. Smith with attenuation of her PTSD symptoms. She recommended 48 sessions at a cost of $250 per session, and a total cost of $12,000. Ms. Smith seeks $12,000 to pay for these sessions.
[55] Mr. Cammack suggests that psychotherapy had not been helpful to Ms. Smith in the past, that she made no attempts to obtain psychotherapy after the psychotherapy provided by victim services ended, and that she is therefore unlikely to engage in psychotherapy in the future.
[56] Ms. Smith testified that the talk therapy that she had been provided through victim services was not as helpful to her as her faith-based healing. However, she also testified that she did not feel a particularly positive connection to the therapist that victim services had provided, and that she would absolutely try again if she had the funds to do so. The reason she had not tried again before now is not only because she engaged in faith-based therapy, but also because she could not afford to pay for other psychotherapy.
[57] I find that there is a real and substantial risk Ms. Smith will require this care. She is entitled to $12,000 for future psychological care, as recommended by Dr. King.
[58] Ms. Smith seeks $6,240 for future security cost, calculated as lasting for 13 years at $40 per month. There is a real and substantial risk she will require that security. I elect not to perform a present value calculation of those costs, as they have been calculated in a very conservative way, assuming there will be no increase in this cost for the next 13 years.
Prejudgment Interest
[59] Ms. Smith may re-calculate pre-judgment interest based on the amounts I have awarded and submit the basis for her recalculation with a draft order in word format.
Disposition
[60] Ms. Smith is awarded the following damages:
a. $175,000 in non-pecuniary damages;
b. Special damages comprising:
i. $77,951.01 for moving costs
ii. $1,920 for security monitoring costs
iii. $183.02 for medical expenses
c. Future care and monitoring costs comprising:
i. $12,000 for future care;
ii. $6,240 for future security monitoring; and
d. Prejudgment and post judgment interest.
Costs
[61] The parties are encouraged to agree upon costs. If they are unable to do so, Ms. Smith may provide costs submissions of no more than 4 double spaced pages, along with any offers to settle, by June 10, 2025. Mr. Cammack may respond with the same page limits by June 24, 2025. There will be no reply submissions. Submissions may be sent to my judicial assistant at Linda.Bunoza@ontario.ca.
Lorne Brownstone
Released: May 28, 2025