General Damages: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Small Claims]] | [[Category:Ontario Small Claims Court]] | ||
[[Category:Legal Principles]] | [[Category:Legal Principles]] | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:Human Rights (LTB)]] | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
[96] The Tribunal makes the following order: | [96] The Tribunal makes the following order: | ||
::(1) Joanna Cierpich shall pay Kifle Bekele $8,000 in general damages and $2,000 in damages for mental anguish, together with prejudgment interest on these amounts at the rate of 2.3% from July 29, 2004. | ::(1) Joanna Cierpich shall pay Kifle Bekele $8,000 in general damages and $2,000 in damages for mental anguish, together with prejudgment interest on these amounts at the rate of 2.3% from July 29, 2004. | ||
==[http://canlii.ca/t/j309g Punitharaj v. Miller-Jones, 2019 ONSC 5505 (CanLII)]== | |||
'''Damages''' | |||
[26] The plaintiffs are entitled to damages based on the difference between the contracted sale price between the parties and the ultimate sales price; [http://canlii.ca/t/hrcqj Gamoff v. Hu, 2018 ONSC 2172 (CanLII) at para. 40]. The defendant agreed to purchase the house for $680,000. The property was ultimately sold at $591000. The plaintiffs are owed the shortfall of $89,000, included in that is the forfeited deposit of $10,000 for an outstanding amount of $79,000. | |||
[27] The plaintiffs are also entitled to recover their costs involved in relisting the property as they are entitled to be put into as close a position as they would have been had the purchase with the defendants closed; [http://canlii.ca/t/g82p1 Briscoe-Montgomery v. Kelly, 2014 ONSC 4240 (CanLII)]. However, they are not entitled to now seek costs for the extension of the closings that they voluntarily agreed to. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to the following additional damages: | |||
::a) $3501.21 incurred for bridge financing; | |||
::b) $8696.36 paid to buy out the furnace and air conditioner to assist in the resale of the property. In my view this was a valid step by the plaintiffs to assist in reselling the property and mitigating their damages; and | |||
::c) $325.74 utility charges arising from the breach of the agreement of purchase of sale | |||
[28] Therefore, the total damages owing to the plaintiffs are $91,523.31. | |||
Latest revision as of 19:58, 16 August 2021
Bekele v. Cierpich, 2008 HRTO 7 (CanLII)
[83] The Tribunal makes general damage awards to compensate for the intrinsic value of the infringement of the complainant’s rights. In Sanford v. Koop, 2005 HRTO 53 (CanLII) at para. 35, the Tribunal summarized the following factors used in assessing the appropriate quantum of general damages:
- Humiliation experienced by the complainant
- Hurt feelings experienced by the complainant
- A complainant’s loss of self-respect
- A complainant’s loss of dignity
- A complainant’s loss of self-esteem
- A complainant’s loss of confidence
- The experience of victimization
- Vulnerability of the complainant
- The seriousness, frequency and duration of the offensive treatment
[96] The Tribunal makes the following order:
- (1) Joanna Cierpich shall pay Kifle Bekele $8,000 in general damages and $2,000 in damages for mental anguish, together with prejudgment interest on these amounts at the rate of 2.3% from July 29, 2004.
Punitharaj v. Miller-Jones, 2019 ONSC 5505 (CanLII)
Damages
[26] The plaintiffs are entitled to damages based on the difference between the contracted sale price between the parties and the ultimate sales price; Gamoff v. Hu, 2018 ONSC 2172 (CanLII) at para. 40. The defendant agreed to purchase the house for $680,000. The property was ultimately sold at $591000. The plaintiffs are owed the shortfall of $89,000, included in that is the forfeited deposit of $10,000 for an outstanding amount of $79,000.
[27] The plaintiffs are also entitled to recover their costs involved in relisting the property as they are entitled to be put into as close a position as they would have been had the purchase with the defendants closed; Briscoe-Montgomery v. Kelly, 2014 ONSC 4240 (CanLII). However, they are not entitled to now seek costs for the extension of the closings that they voluntarily agreed to. The plaintiffs are therefore entitled to the following additional damages:
- a) $3501.21 incurred for bridge financing;
- b) $8696.36 paid to buy out the furnace and air conditioner to assist in the resale of the property. In my view this was a valid step by the plaintiffs to assist in reselling the property and mitigating their damages; and
- c) $325.74 utility charges arising from the breach of the agreement of purchase of sale
[28] Therefore, the total damages owing to the plaintiffs are $91,523.31.
