M.L.H. v. R.G.R. et al., 2007 ONCA 804
Judge | Cronk, Gillese and Epstein, JJ.A. |
Court | Court of Appeal (Ontario) |
Case Date | Tuesday November 06, 2007 |
Jurisdiction | Ontario |
Citations | 2007 ONCA 804;(2007), 231 O.A.C. 136 (CA) |
M.L.H. v. R.G.R. (2007), 231 O.A.C. 136 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2007] O.A.C. TBEd. NO.074
M.L.H. (respondent) v. R.G.R. and M.L., formerly M.R. (appellant)
(C44490; 2007 ONCA 804)
Indexed As: M.L.H. v. R.G.R. et al.
Ontario Court of Appeal
Cronk, Gillese and Epstein, JJ.A.
November 26, 2007.
Summary:
The plaintiff sued the defendants, former spouses who use to babysit the plaintiff, for, inter alia, historical sexual assaults and breach of fiduciary duty. The husband did not defend the action and was noted in default. The wife defended the action and argued that the abusive incidents did not take place in her presence and that she was unaware of them.
The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2005] O.T.C. 1033, held that the defendants were jointly and severally liable to pay general damages of $100,000. The trial judge also awarded exemplary damages of $20,000 against the wife. The wife appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal, Gillese, J.A., dissenting in part, allowed the appeal, to the extent of setting aside the exemplary damages award.
Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.
Damages - Topic 1302.1
Exemplary or punitive damages - Sexual assault (incl. sexual abuse) - The plaintiff sued the defendants, former spouses who use to babysit the plaintiff, for, inter alia, historical sexual assaults and breach of fiduciary duty - The husband did not defend the action but the wife did - The trial judge allowed the action and awarded general damages of $100,000 and exemplary or punitive damages of $20,000 against the wife - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the wife's appeal respecting the exemplary or punitive damages award - The trial judge reasoned that an award of exemplary damages was necessary to punish and deter conduct by the wife that he found to be reprehensible - However, his reasons contained no indication that, in so concluding, he related the facts of this case to the underlying purposes of exemplary or punitive damages and considered how, in particular, an award of exemplary or punitive damages would further one or other of the objectives of the law not already met by his award of general damages - This was especially necessary in this case because the trial judge's reasons suggested that his general damages award contained a punitive element - This defect in the trial judge's reasoning was an error - See paragraphs 19 to 29.
Damages - Topic 1309.1
Exemplary or punitive damages - Breach of confidence or fiduciary duty - [See Damages - Topic 1302.1].
Damages - Topic 1322.1
Exemplary or punitive damages - Bars - Award unnecessary - [See Damages - Topic 1302.1].
Equity - Topic 3606
Fiduciary or confidential relationships - General principles - What constitutes a fiduciary relationship - The plaintiff sued the defendants, former spouses who use to babysit the plaintiff, for, inter alia, historical sexual assaults and breach of fiduciary duty - The husband did not defend the action but the wife did - She acknowledged that she was aware of a propensity by her husband to abuse young girls and that she knew of his criminal record for sexually inappropriate behaviour towards young girls - She argued, however, that the abusive incidents did not take place in her presence and that she was unaware of them - The trial judge found that she knew of the abusive acts or was wilfully blind to them, that the acts took place when she was present, and that she did nothing to prevent them - The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that a relationship of trust existed between the wife and the plaintiff and that the wife owed a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff - On the findings of the trial judge, that duty was repeatedly breached by virtue of the wife's deliberate failure to take any steps to prevent her husband's abusive acts in relation to the plaintiff - See paragraphs 8 to 14.
Equity - Topic 3654.3
Fiduciary or confidential relationships - Breach of fiduciary relationship - By babysitter - [See Equity - Topic 3606].
Torts - Topic 7142
Joint and concurrent tortfeasors - Concurrent tortfeasors - What constitutes - The plaintiff sued the defendants, former spouses who use to babysit the plaintiff, for, inter alia, historical sexual assaults and breach of fiduciary duty - The husband did not defend the action but the wife did - The trial judge allowed the action - The wife appealed, respecting the trial judge's imposition of joint and several liability - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed that ground of appeal - The trial judge found that the wife was negligent because she had actual knowledge of her husband's improper conduct towards the plaintiff (or was wilfully blind) and she failed to take proper steps to prevent the abuse - The trial judge also found that the wife and husband were both able to unilaterally exercise some discretion or power in relation to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff was vulnerable to the wife's actions as well as to those of her husband - Therefore, the wife engaged in tortious conduct distinct from that of her husband and acquiesced in or furthered her husband's wrongful conduct - These findings were sufficient to fix the wife with liability on a joint and several basis - Her actions, as found by the trial judge, were those of a joint or an independent concurrent tortfeasor - See paragraphs 15 to 18.
Torts - Topic 7162
Joint and concurrent tortfeasors - Joint tortfeasors - What constitutes - [See Torts - Topic 7142].
Cases Noticed:
Frame v. Smith and Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99; 78 N.R. 40; 23 O.A.C. 84, refd to. [para. 13].
K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [paras. 22, 39].
Fidler v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 3; 350 N.R. 40; 227 B.C.A.C. 39; 374 W.A.C. 39, refd to. [para. 24].
Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co. et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595; 283 N.R. 1; 156 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 24].
Norberg v. Wynrib, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226; 138 N.R. 81; 9 B.C.A.C. 1; 19 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 33].
Counsel:
Michael David Lannan, for the appellant;
Deborah L. Ditchfield, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on November 6, 2007, by Cronk, Gillese and Epstein, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was released on November 26, 2007, and the following opinions were filed:
Cronk, J.A., (Epstein, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 30;
Gillese, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 31 to 43.
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Fullowka et al. v. Pinkerton's of Canada Ltd. et al., (2008) 433 A.R. 69 (NWTCA)
...169]. K.K. v. K.W.G., [2006] O.T.C. 609; 40 C.C.L.T.(3d) 139 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 96, footnote 169]. M.L.H. v. R.G.R. et al. (2007), 231 O.A.C. 136; 88 O.R.(3d) 1; 2007 ONCA 804, refd to. [para. 96, footnote X. v. Bedfordshire County Council - see P1 et al. v. Bedfordshire County Cou......
-
Table of Cases
...(1991), 108 N.S.R. (2d) 401, [1991] N.S.J. No. 181 (S.C.T.D.) ....... 28 Hockley v. Riley (2007), 88 O.R. (3d) 1, 287 D.L.R. (4th) 424, 2007 ONCA 804 .................................................................................................. 112 Hodgins v. Barnes, [2007] O.J. No. 207......
-
Table of cases
...Ho v Greater Vancouver Water District, 2008 BCSC 699 .................................. 296 Hockley v Riley, 2007 ONCA 804 ...................................................................... 675 Hodgkinson v Simms, [1994] 3 SCR 377, 117 DLR (4th) 161, [1994] 9 WWR 609 .........................
-
Equitable Compensation
...in an area 89 See McCamus, above note 22 at 325; Indutech Canada Ltd v Gibbs Pipe Distributors Ltd , 2011 ABQB 38. 90 Hockley v Riley , 2007 ONCA 804 at para 29; Grewal v Sandhu , 2012 BCCA 26, leave to appeal to SCC refused [2012] SCCA No 120. 91 See Re Dawson , above note 27; Target Holdi......
-
Fullowka et al. v. Pinkerton's of Canada Ltd. et al., (2008) 433 A.R. 69 (NWTCA)
...169]. K.K. v. K.W.G., [2006] O.T.C. 609; 40 C.C.L.T.(3d) 139 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 96, footnote 169]. M.L.H. v. R.G.R. et al. (2007), 231 O.A.C. 136; 88 O.R.(3d) 1; 2007 ONCA 804, refd to. [para. 96, footnote X. v. Bedfordshire County Council - see P1 et al. v. Bedfordshire County Cou......
-
Dhillon v. Jaffer, 2016 BCCA 119
...at 81-82. Where such compensation is awarded in equity a further award of common law punitive damages cannot be made: M.L.H. v. R.G.R., 2007 ONCA 804. [At paras. 82-4; emphasis added.] [27] I also note a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal concerning breach of fiduciary duty on the part......
-
Grewal et al. v. Sandhu et al., 2012 BCCA 26
...1, refd to. [para. 83]. K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 84]. M.L.H. v. R.G.R. et al. (2007), 231 O.A.C. 136; 88 O.R.(3d) 1; 2007 ONCA 804, refd to. [para. J.R.I.G. v. Tyhurst., [2001] B.C.T.C. 369; 2001 BCSC 369, affd. (2003), 181 B.C.A.C. 227; ......
-
Rich v. Bromley Estate et al., (2011) 305 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 69 (NLTD(G))
...(Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 89]. T.O. v. J.H.O., [2006] B.C.T.C. 560; 2006 BCSC 560, refd to. [para. 89]. M.L.H. v. R.G.R. et al. (2007), 231 O.A.C. 136; 2007 CarswellOnt 7578 (C.A.), refd to. [para. M.A. and T.A. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 227 Sask.R. 260; 287 W.A.C. 260; ......
-
Table of Cases
...(1991), 108 N.S.R. (2d) 401, [1991] N.S.J. No. 181 (S.C.T.D.) ....... 28 Hockley v. Riley (2007), 88 O.R. (3d) 1, 287 D.L.R. (4th) 424, 2007 ONCA 804 .................................................................................................. 112 Hodgins v. Barnes, [2007] O.J. No. 207......
-
Table of cases
...Ho v Greater Vancouver Water District, 2008 BCSC 699 .................................. 296 Hockley v Riley, 2007 ONCA 804 ...................................................................... 675 Hodgkinson v Simms, [1994] 3 SCR 377, 117 DLR (4th) 161, [1994] 9 WWR 609 .........................
-
Equitable Compensation
...in an area 89 See McCamus, above note 22 at 325; Indutech Canada Ltd v Gibbs Pipe Distributors Ltd , 2011 ABQB 38. 90 Hockley v Riley , 2007 ONCA 804 at para 29; Grewal v Sandhu , 2012 BCCA 26, leave to appeal to SCC refused [2012] SCCA No 120. 91 See Re Dawson , above note 27; Target Holdi......