Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CV-23-00000052-0000 Date: 2025-09-26 Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between: Jane Doe, Plaintiff – and – Jason Redmond, Defendant
Counsel: G. Hnatiw, for the Plaintiff C. Letourneau, for the Defendant
Heard: August 19, 2025
Reasons for Decision
Hurley, J.
Introduction
[1] The defendant, Jason Redmond, sexually assaulted the plaintiff on December 4, 2017. He was convicted of this offence in February 2023 and sentenced to six years in prison later that year. He filed a notice of appeal but has not taken any steps to perfect the appeal.
[2] The plaintiff commenced this action in June 2023, claiming general and aggravated damages for sexual assault and battery; breach of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion and disclosure of private facts); and the intentional infliction of mental suffering. There is also a claim for pecuniary damages.
[3] This motion for summary judgment was brought in May 2025. Mr. Redmond did not deliver any responding affidavit material. The parties agree that this is a suitable case for summary judgment.
The Issues
[4] There is no dispute that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of general and aggravated damages for sexual assault and battery. The only issue is quantum.
[5] Mr. Redmond contests the claims for damages in respect of breach of privacy and intentional infliction of mental suffering.
[6] The plaintiff's income loss claim is limited to $25,000 and is based on the loss of competitive advantage. Mr. Redmond asserts that there is no proven loss under this head of damages.
[7] The plaintiff is claiming future care costs of $7,800 for psychotherapy. Mr. Redmond does not dispute this amount nor the OHIP subrogated claim of $687.
General and Aggravated Damages
[8] The applicable principles were summarized by van Rensburg, J.A. in Zando v. Ali, 2018 ONCA 680, at paras. 12-14:
First, there is the purpose of non-pecuniary damages in sexual assault and battery cases: "to provide solace for the victim's pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, to vindicate the victim's dignity and personal autonomy and to recognize the humiliating and degrading nature of the wrongful acts".
Second, the factors for assessing such damages include: (i) the circumstances of the victim at the time of the events, including the victim's age and vulnerability; (ii) the circumstances of the assaults including their number, frequency and how violent, invasive and degrading they were; (iii) the circumstances of the defendant, including age and whether he or she was in a position of trust; and (iv) the consequences for the victim of the wrongful behaviour including ongoing psychological injuries.
Third, in assessing non-pecuniary damages for sexual assault, the court must first consider the important characteristics of the case to define the types of cases that should be considered for comparison purposes in establishing an appropriate range, and then select an amount of damages within that range, based on the features of the particular case. [Citations omitted]
[9] In upholding the trial judge's award of $175,000 in general damages for a single incident of sexual assault, she stated that damages "are not solely to compensate physical or mental injuries" but "fulfill a range of functions including the recognition of the humiliating and degrading nature of the wrongful acts": para. 19.
[10] Aggravated damages can be assessed as a facet of general damages or separately. They are intended to "compensate the plaintiff for the humiliating, oppressive and malicious aspects of the defendant's conduct which aggravated the plaintiff's pain and suffering by causing such things as a loss of dignity, pride and self-respect": BE v. OR, 2024 ONSC 6193, at para. 97.
[11] In BE, general and aggravated damages for a single instance of sexual assault were assessed at $350,000. In J.B v. R.B., 2020 ONSC 1023, the amount was $275,000. In Upton v. Carson, 2024 ONSC 3417, Casullo, J., after reviewing the case law, awarded $175,000: paras. 28-32.[1]
[12] The plaintiff submits that her general and aggravated damages should be assessed at $325,000. Mr. Redmond says the amount should be no greater than $180,000.
[13] The central issue in dispute is the nature and severity of the plaintiff's physical and mental condition before the sexual assault. Mr. Redmond contends that the plaintiff had a long-standing addiction to alcohol and drugs and serious mental health issues before the sexual assault and his actions did not significantly worsen her life. The plaintiff is not to be placed in a position better than her original one: M.B. v. 2014052 Ontario Ltd., 2012 ONCA 135, at paras. 32-33. According to Mr. Redmond, the plaintiff's original position was "rather bleak".
[14] The plaintiff was 41 years old when Mr. Redmond sexually assaulted her. In her sentencing decision, Justice Robb[2] summarized the relevant facts of the offence and Mr. Redmond's callous and demeaning treatment of the plaintiff on the date of the sexual assault and afterwards:
[They] drove to Niagara Falls together on December 4, 2017. They both consumed cocaine from when they woke up that morning until they returned for the final time to their hotel room. [The plaintiff] consumed a large amount of alcohol over the same period.
While she was unconscious or in an incapacitated state, Mr. Redmond had sexual intercourse with her and recorded it on his phone. When she woke on December 5, 2017, Mr. Redmond told [the plaintiff] what he had done. He called her derogatory names and ridiculed her. He told her he had done it to show her how easily men could have sex with her without her knowing.
Shortly after they returned from their trip, Mr. Redmond told two of [the plaintiff's] friends that he had sexual intercourse with [the plaintiff] while she was passed out and offered to show them the recording. Again, he called [the plaintiff] derogatory names.
In the fall of 2018 or spring 2019, Mr. Redmond's subsequent intimate partner found and watched the recording of Mr. Redmond sexually assaulting [the plaintiff]. When she confronted Mr. Redmond about it, he told her that [the plaintiff] had a drinking problem and he had done it to teach her that anybody could rape her when she was blacked out.
In the fall of 2018, Mr. Redmond told his friend what he had done and that his girlfriend had seen it. Mr. Redmond appeared to think this was funny.
[15] The plaintiff filed an affidavit in support of the motion and was cross-examined on it. She deposed that she now constantly struggles with feelings of guilt, self-blame, and shame and suffers from flashbacks, nightmares, low self-esteem and panic attacks. She has made significant strides in overcoming her substance use disorder, but her anxiety has become more intense and debilitating.
[16] Again, I borrow from Justice Robb's sentencing decision because it succinctly captures the profound consequences of Mr. Redmond's wrongful acts:
This offence has significantly impacted [the plaintiff]. It has taken away her sense of safety, joy, her ability to trust and her self-worth. Her mental health has suffered and continues to suffer.
[17] Mr. Redmond relies, in my view, on a selective interpretation of the medical records to support his contention that the plaintiff's life has not been significantly altered because of his conduct. He suggests that, because the plaintiff did not disclose the sexual assault to healthcare professionals, it could not have been a significant event for her at the time.
[18] The medical records show that the plaintiff has had ongoing problems with alcohol and drug use and her mental health has not been good at times. She had a difficult childhood, to say the least. These issues would have been well-known to Mr. Redmond before he sexually abused her and then used the recording of it for his own malignant purposes.
[19] But the medical records tell only part of the story. The plaintiff's evidence, as outlined in her affidavit and her victim impact statement at the criminal trial, reveals the devastating consequences of what Mr. Redmond did to her. I accept her evidence.
[20] Mr. Redmond's imputation that the plaintiff's failure to tell some of the healthcare professionals about the sexual assault means it could not have affected her in a substantial way is fallacious. It is not uncommon for victims of sexual crimes, especially those committed by an intimate partner, to not disclose those crimes or admit to others that the trauma they are suffering is due to those crimes.
[21] There is also medical evidence that refutes Mr. Redmond's position. In a report dated July 10, 2023, Dr. duToit, a psychiatrist at the Brockville General Hospital, diagnosed her as suffering from Extreme PTSD because of Mr. Redmond's actions. She outlined the enervating symptoms that the plaintiff has experienced because of it. After the criminal charge was laid, the plaintiff received financial assistance from Victim Services which allowed her to obtain counselling for a period of time. The psychotherapist's records establish the connection between the sexual assault and the serious mental torment she was experiencing.
[22] Before the sexual assault, the plaintiff's mental health was admittedly fragile. But she could, for the most part, successfully cope with those ups and downs. I find that Mr. Redmond's wrongful conduct has taken away, as Justice Robb observed, "her sense of safety, joy, her ability to trust and her self-worth". These are fundamental pillars of a good life. The plaintiff's evidence convinces me that, because of Mr. Redmond's wrongful acts, she has suffered severe psychological harm which continues to this day and will persist, likely for the rest of her life.
[23] I must also consider the other factors identified in Zando. The plaintiff was Mr. Redmond's intimate partner. He took advantage of her when she was in a vulnerable condition. She trusted him and he betrayed that trust in a manner that has deeply, and permanently, scarred her. His conduct afterwards was reprehensible, perpetrated to dominate, control and humiliate her. Such egregious behaviour places this case in the upper range of damages.
[24] The plaintiff contends that because Mr. Redmond had training and experience as a police officer, he had a better understanding of the harm and trauma that his conduct would cause. I disagree. Any person would know the probable consequences of these kinds of malicious actions.
[25] Mr. Redmond suggests that, in assessing the plaintiff's damages, I should also consider his mental health history and how incarceration will exacerbate his PTSD symptoms. He did not cite any case law in support of this submission. I reject it. The consequences of his conduct are his alone to bear; they should never be a factor in deciding what is reasonable and fair compensation for the victim.
[26] The evidence also establishes the essential elements of the other torts pleaded by the plaintiff. Rather than make separate awards of damages for these torts, I have considered Mr. Redmond's commission of them in my assessment of the general and aggravated damages.
[27] I assess the nonpecuniary damages at $225,000.
The Pecuniary Loss Claim
[28] As I noted at the outset, the plaintiff's claim is based on a loss of competitive advantage.
[29] In Conforti (Re), 2012 ONSC 199, Wilton-Siegal, J. described an award for loss of competitive advantage as "recognition of the fact that the plaintiff's competitive position in the open labour market has been compromised as a result of the plaintiff's injuries": para. 33. Although a plaintiff may be earning the same level of income as before the tortious acts, there is still a pecuniary loss: para. 45. It is effectively a loss of an asset: Ali v. Irfan, 2020 ONSC 3239, at para. 25.
[30] Expert evidence is not required to establish this claim or to quantify it. It is a prospective loss, and the plaintiff must establish this claim as a real and substantial possibility: L.P. v. S.P., 2019 ONSC 1737, at para. 45.
[31] The plaintiff has been employed as a bartender for most of her adult working life. Her annual income has fluctuated. Most of her income is derived from tips. She is now intensely anxious when interacting with others and believes this has, and will continue to, negatively affect her ability to earn tips.
[32] Mr. Redmond points out that the plaintiff did not have a steady employment history before the sexual assault and that her income has increased since 2017. In short, there is no proven loss.
[33] It is often difficult to precisely calculate this type of claim. I must calculate "a lump-sum figure, on the basis of all of the evidence, which is fair and reasonable" to both sides: Earl v. Lang, [1997] O.J. No. 739 (Ont. Gen. Div.), aff'd
[34] The plaintiff is 49 years old. She will likely continue working in the service industry for at least another 10 years. She has no other marketable skills. Her interaction with customers will be affected by her underlying mental health issues and I can reasonably conclude that this will adversely affect her income given the nature of her employment. Her ability to work as much or in the same way as before will be impacted by her condition. I assess this loss to be $25,000.
Disposition
[35] In summary, Mr. Redmond is liable to the plaintiff for the following damages:
a. General and aggravated damages – $225,000
b. Loss of competitive advantage – $25,000
c. Future care costs – $7,500
d. OHIP subrogated claim – $687
[36] The plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest on the award of nonpecuniary damages at 5% from the date of the claim pursuant to rule 53.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure: Henry v. Zaitlen, 2024 ONCA 614. Counsel should be able to calculate the prejudgment interest amounts.
[37] I also award costs on a substantial indemnity basis under s. 4(6) of the Victim Bill of Rights, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 6. The plaintiff filed a costs outline stating that her costs on a substantial indemnity basis were $43,594.01 inclusive of HST and disbursements. Mr. Redmond's counsel requested an opportunity to file written submissions on the issue of costs. These written submissions shall not exceed two pages exclusive of a costs outline and shall be filed within 30 days of the date of the release of this decision. The plaintiff shall file her response to the written submissions within 15 days of receiving Mr. Redmond's submissions. The plaintiff's counsel shall notify my judicial assistant, Sarah.Wheaton@ontario.ca, when all submissions have been filed.
[38] I made a sealing order under s. 137(2) of the Courts of Justice Act on consent at the conclusion of the hearing which remains in force.
Hurley, J.
Released: September 26, 2025
Footnotes
[1] I note that the award in Zando would be approximately $220,000 today.
[2] Justice O'Brien's present surname is Robb.