The Court's Analysis of Dog Bites

The case law involving dog attacks suggests general damages in the range of $2,900 to $150,400 in 2022 dollars, with a median value of $35,500 in 2022 dollars.

Case law is of limited utility in dog bite cases because the assessment of damages is very much case specific. The case law nonetheless provides some guidance as to a potential range of damages. (Moretto v Nicolini-Femia)

In Rai v. Flowers, Mrs. Rai testified that she was walking with her son across the parking lot at Finchdale Plaza, in Toronto, at approximately 8:20 in the evening on August 8, 2009. She testified that suddenly, and without warning, a large dog jumped up on her from behind. She testified that she suffered puncture wounds to her buttocks, and scratches to her back. However, the Court found that Mrs. Rai’s injuries were just as likely to have been caused by the claws and the paws of Kahlau when she jumped upon Mrs. Rai. In relying on Chatterton v. Cowan for guidance and the Collins case to which it refers as a fact situation, the Court awarded Mrs. Rai $2,500 for general damages (approximately $2,900 in 2022 dollars), plus prejudgment interest, and provided the following analysis.

In Chatterton v. Cowan, a 48-year-old woman was pinned to the ground and bit by a German Shepherd. The Court noted that dog bite cases have attracted a large range of damages. The plaintiff's injuries healed, and her scars were not visible, given their location on her body (which was not clear from the decision). She experienced emotional trauma, including nightmares and difficulty sleeping. She was awarded $8,500 in general damages (approximately $10,500 in 2022 dollars), which took into account the traumatic nature of the attack.

In Sgro et al. v. Verbeek, the defendant's German Shepherd dog bit the seven-year-old plaintiff about his face and neck while the plaintiff was petting the dog. The plaintiff had come to the defendant's premises with his father. The defendant did not warn the plaintiff about the dog. There was no evidence that the dog had previously attacked or bitten anyone. On general damages, the Court awarded $6,500 (approximately $21,300 in 2022 dollars).

In Camilleri v Brunet, the plaintiff Nicole Camilleri and her chihuahua were bitten by a large dog owned by the defendant. The effects of the incident created significant trauma for the plaintiff. In addition, she continued to suffer some pain and itching as a result of the puncture wounds. The plaintiff was left with obvious scarring, which was visible when the plaintiff wore a bathing suit. The plaintiff, formerly a dog lover, became afraid of dogs and suffered some anxiety when approached by dogs. The Court ultimately awarded $28,000 in general damages (approximately $31,500 in 2022 dollars).

In Liu and Yi v. Demasi, the plaintiff was bitten by a dog on his right inner arm, his outer arm, his right forearm, his left calf, and his right flank. Doctors opined that the plaintiff was restricted from running due to pain from the scar. He also experienced anxiety and self-consciousness when wearing short sleeves due to the arm scars. However, no psychiatric or psychological records establishing this were available. No defence was filed. The Court, giving the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and accepting his reported injuries, assessed general damages at $30,000 (approximately $35,500 in 2022 dollars), $15,000 for loss of income (approximately $17,800 in 2022 dollars), $866 for future scar revision (approximately $1,020 in 2022 dollars), $2,504.60 for housekeeping (approximately $3,000 in 2022 dollars), $3,000 for the Family Law claim (approximately $3,560 in 2022 dollars), and $550 for out-of-pocket expenses (approximately $650 in 2022 dollars).

In Meloche v. Bezaire, the Court assessed general damages at $30,000.00 (approximately $35,500 in 2022 dollars) for injuries that included two large bite wounds and three puncture wounds from a dog. The scars were noticeable. For several months, the plaintiff had to rest and was unable to perform household tasks. The plaintiff was also unable to engage in pastimes such as cycling and walking due to pain from the injuries and fear of dogs. However, her fear of dogs was found to be subsiding. The Court also awarded aggravated damages in the amount of $10,000 (approximately $13,800 in 2022 dollars), and compensation to the plaintiff for her out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of $361.46 (approximately $490 in 2022 dollars).

In Strom v. White, a dog knocked down and bit the face of the six year old plaintiff. The plaintiff’s face was torn around the mouth and the scars were obvious when viewed up close. The plaintiff became afraid of dogs and experienced nightmares and bed wetting. Although the plaintiff suffered some mental distress it was not expected to have long-lasting effects. The Court awarded $22,000 in general damages (approximately $37,000 in 2022 dollars)

In Curwen v. Srivathsan, the 15-year-old plaintiff was bitten by the defendants' dog on her face, neck, and forearms. At the age of twenty, she carried visible scars on her face and had anxiety about her appearance, due to the remaining scars. She was required to avoid sun exposure. Zoe experienced stress about interviews for summer jobs and about having her photograph taken. The Court accepted the seriousness of the injuries suffered by Zoe, as well as her ongoing anxiety relating to dogs and to her appearance. However, there was limited medical evidence regarding Zoe’s current circumstances. Based on the evidence and the range of damages awarded in similar cases, the Court found that a reasonable amount for general damages for the injury suffered by Zoe was $37,500.00 (approximately $39,800 in 2022 dollars)

In Zhan v. Kumar, the plaintiff was bitten by a dog and suffered multiple lacerations over both cheeks and the nose area. Most of the lacerations were superficial and healed well. There was a right cheek laceration that had a small flap elevation. That laceration required stitches and further surgery. He went through lengthy medical treatment including two operations on his face. He had some residual numbness and pain although the scars are not particularly noticeable. As a result of the injuries, he was depressed and took some prescription medication for his depression and sleeplessness. The plaintiff testified that the upset from the injury caused sufficient strain on his marriage that he eventually separated from his wife and daughter. The plaintiff was awarded the sum of $35,000.00 in general damages (approximately $44,200 in 2022 dollars) and $4,000 in pecuniary loss (approximately $5,000 in 2022 dollars) for the injuries resulting from the attack.

In Moretto v Nicolini-Femia, a young woman had been bitten by a dog when she was a teenager, and ended up with significant scarring and damage to her face. The facial scarring was immediately noticeable at a conversational level of 2-3 feet away and more noticeable on smiling. Make-up did camouflage the scar to some extent. The plaintiff advanced a claim that she had lost a competitive advantage in the workplace as a result of suffering facial scarring. The Court found that there was no compensable loss of competitive advantage proven by the plaintiff. The general damages were assessed at $45,000 (approximately $49,800 in 2022 dollars) plus future cost of care for laser treatments at $10,000 (approximately $11,000 in 2022 dollars) and sunscreen at $2,500 (approximately $2,800 in 2022 dollars).

Kent v. Laverdiere represents the highest damages award in the quantum range. The child plaintiff was severely attacked by several dogs at the age of 12 years old. The quantum of the damages was agreed upon and approved by the Court as follows: $125,000 for general damages (approximately $150,400 in 2022 dollars); $100,000.00 for damages for future loss of income/loss of competitive advantage (approximately $120,300 in 2022 dollars); $15,000 for the Family Law Act claim of the plaintiff's mother (approximately $18,000 in 2022 dollars); and $5,000.00 for the Family Law Act claim of the plaintiff's sister (approximately $6,000 in 2022 dollars).

The case law involving dog attacks suggests general damages in the range of $2,900 to $150,400 in 2022 dollars, with a median value of $35,500 in 2022 dollars.

In Rai v. Flowers, 2014 ONSC 3792 (CanLII), Mrs. Rai testified that she was walking with her son across the parking lot at Finchdale Plaza, in Toronto, at approximately 8:20 in the evening on August 8, 2009. She testified that suddenly, and without warning, a large dog jumped up on her from behind. She testified that she suffered puncture wounds to her buttocks, and scratches to her back. However, the Court found that Mrs. Rai’s injuries were just as likely to have been caused by the claws and the paws of Kahlau when she jumped upon Mrs. Rai. In relying on Chatterton v. Cowan for guidance and the Collins case to which it refers as a fact situation, the Court awarded Mrs. Rai $2,500 for general damages (approximately $2,900 in 2022 dollars), plus prejudgment interest, and provided the following analysis:

[39] Counsel for the plaintiff has provided me with two decisions with respect to the range of damages Mrs. Rai is seeking. The first is the Zantingh v. Jerry decision discussed above. In that case, a small boy had entered the neighbour’s yard to retrieve a small plastic ball. The neighbour’s dog was chained to a stake in that yard but unfortunately, the boy came within range of the dog and the dog attacked him, pinning him and biting him several times. The boy’s mother entered the yard and distracted the dog in order to throw her son clear. She herself was then attacked by the dog and bitten on the leg until she was able to remove herself from the dog’s reach.

[40] In Zantingh, the trial judge had the benefit of extensive reports from the young boy’s treating physician and plastic surgeon. The boy suffered multiple lacerations to his face and head, including significant lacerations to his right cheek near his eye, his scalp, his right ear as well as his neck and left arm. Photographs were tendered at trial described as “graphic” and “injuries that would be cringe-worthy if sustained by anyone, particularly a child.” The trial judge stated that he had no doubt that the injuries were extraordinarily painful by their inherent nature. This pain was confirmed by reports from hospital staff, documenting his screaming and crying during the course of treatment.

[41] The boy suffered from trauma that included bed wetting and nightmares for a number of weeks. He reportedly received ongoing treatment in the form of medication and antibiotics. His scarring also made him the target of unwanted attention and harassment by school children at school. For these injuries, Justice Leach assessed damages in the amount of $60,000.

[...]

[43] In the case of Chatterton v. Cowan and Kish, 2010 ONSC 4314, Justice Lauwers (as he then was) assessed the damages of a 48-year-old woman who had encountered a large Alaskan Sheppard on a public street. The large dog had grabbed her by the hip, threw her to the ground and had bitten her, imposing two puncture marks. The dog pinned her to the ground for about 5 minutes until the dog’s owner finally attended to pull the dog off. Counsel for the plaintiff in Chatterton suggested general damages in the range of $15,000 to $20,000, but gave Justice Lauwers no case law for suggesting this range.

[44] Justice Lauwers had this to say about the nature of general damages and their purpose:

[5] As a matter of first principle, general damages, or “non-pecuniary” damages are not attached to any particular expense. As the Supreme Court of Canada noted in Andrews v. Grand & Toy Alberta Limited, these damages are intended to provide the injured person “with a reasonable solace for his misfortune”, including “pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life.” In Lindal v. Lindal, the Court stated, “the purpose of making the award is to substitute other amenities for those that have been lost, not to compensate for something with a money value.”

[45] Justice Lauwers goes on to review a number of decisions that provide a range of damages for the injuries suffered by the plaintiffs in each case. Suffice it to say, dog attack claims and damages awarded to the plaintiff in those actions must be decided on a case by case basis. Justice Leach awarded general damages to the plaintiff in the amount of $8,500 for her injuries. From the review made by Justice Lauwers in Chatterton to assess those damages, the awards made in cases ranged from a high of $35,000 to a low of $2,500 in Collins (Litigation Guardian) v. Amour. In that case, the Court awarded $2,500 to a 3 year old plaintiff who required treatment that included 2 sutures.

[46] On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the punctures to Mrs. Rai’s buttock or backside were caused by a dog bite because I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the dog was not muzzled at the time of the incident. Only Mrs. Rai’s son observed the dog to be in a position to counter Teddy’s evidence that Kahlau was wearing a muzzle, and only Teddy testified as to that fact. I find that Mrs. Rai’s injuries were just as likely to have been caused by the claws and the paws of Kahlau when she jumped upon Mrs. Rai. There is no evidence of any stitches or other medical treatment given to Mrs. Rai beyond the injections she received to protect her from tetanus or rabies.

[47] Given that the court is generally guided by previous cases to make decisions on a principled basis, I rely upon Chatterton for guidance and the Collins case to which it refers as a fact situation that resembles those here. I therefore award Mrs. Rai $2,500 for general damages, plus prejudgment interest.

[48] On the question of damages, section 2(3) of the Act mandates the court to reduce the damages awarded in proportion to the degree, if any, to which fault or negligence on the part of the plaintiff caused or contributed to the damages. The defendants have pleaded that Mrs. Rai’s damages were caused or contributed to by neglect or reckless acts or omissions of the plaintiff and individuals for whom she is at law responsible. In particular, they allege that the plaintiff was reckless in the supervision of her child.

[49] I heard no persuasive evidence that Mrs. Rai’s son, whether taunting the dog or not, excited the dog to the extent that it caused Kahlau to jump up on Mrs. Rai. I heard no expert evidence about how a dog might react to the noise or movement made by a child walking with an adult person. There was no evidence to assist me in making any finding that the noise or movement of one person would lead a dog to jump up on another. Therefore, I make no finding of contributory negligence or fault on the part of Mrs. Rai under section 2(3) of the Act that caused or contributed to her damages, and I make no reduction of damages in that regard.

[50] Counsel for Mrs. Rai advised me that OHIP did not ask him to protect their interests and I therefore make no order in that regard. Mrs. Rai did not make a claim for loss of income and no financial information was provided as evidence in any event. Therefore, I award no damages for loss of income.

In Chatterton v. Cowan, 2010 ONSC 4314 (CanLII), a 48-year-old woman was pinned to the ground and bit by a German Shepherd. The Court noted that dog bite cases have attracted a large range of damages. The plaintiff's injuries healed, and her scars were not visible, given their location on her body (which was not clear from the decision). She experienced emotional trauma, including nightmares and difficulty sleeping. She was awarded $8,500 in general damages (approximately $10,500 in 2022 dollars), which took into account the traumatic nature of the attack:

[12] Mr. Evans’ request for damages in the range of $15,000.00 to $20,000.00 is too high. Ms. Chatterton’s physical injuries are less serious than those suffered by the plaintiffs in Zhan v. Kumar, Meloche v. Bezaire, Strom v. White, and LeBlanc. Her puncture wounds were not large. They have healed. The scars, if any, are not noticeable given their location. She is able to carry out her day–to-day activities.

[13] However, similar to the plaintiff in Somerville v. Malloy, Ms. Chatterton’s resulting emotional trauma is more serious than her physical injuries. She had nightmares about dogs and had problems sleeping. She feared and continues to fear large dogs. Understandably, the experience of being thrown to the ground, pinned down and bitten by a large dog has greatly distressed her.

[...]

[16] The defendants shall pay the following amounts to the plaintiff. I award Ms. Chatterton $8,500.00 for general damages. I award $2,000.00 for costs inclusive of GST for legal fees and $1,215.92 including GST for disbursements. I also award her full recovery for her loss of pay at $143.20, and payment of the OHIP subrogated claim of $319.95, plus pre-judgement and post-judgment interest on the amounts at the rate provided in the Courts of Justice Act.

In Sgro et al. v. Verbeek, 1980 CanLII 1745 (ON SC), the defendant's German Shepherd dog bit the seven-year-old plaintiff about his face and neck while the plaintiff was petting the dog. The plaintiff had come to the defendant's premises with his father. The defendant did not warn the plaintiff about the dog. There was no evidence that the dog had previously attacked or bitten anyone. On general damages, the Court awarded $6,500 (approximately $21,300 in 2022 dollars):

Stephen was confined to hospital for six days. The photographs and other evidence indicate that he received some very nasty facial lacerations which required suturing. During treatment of his injuries at hospital it became necessary to extract one tooth; and the suturing and scarring of his tissues in his anterior gum area caused the deflection and malpositioning of erupting permanent teeth. Since that time he has been undergoing orthodontic treatment to re-position his upper front teeth into their proper alignment. By October 17, 1979, the cross-bite relationships had been corrected. The residual scarring from the dog bite inside his mouth had faded somewhat. Orthodontic treatment continued until November 27, 1979. At that time all eight of his teeth were in proper alignment. On that date the dentist reported in part as follows: "I suspect minimal relapse if proper retentive care and instruction is followed for the next 18 months."

The scars are not now conspicuous, although there is some minimal scarring apparent on his left cheek resulting in a slight droop above the lip area. Although Stephen was embarrassed by his appearance and frightened of dogs for a time, this embarrassment and fright were not prolonged.

In Camilleri v Brunet, 2016 ONSC 7312 (CanLII), the plaintiff Nicole Camilleri and her chihuahua were bitten by a large dog owned by the defendant. The effects of the incident created significant trauma for the plaintiff. In addition, she continued to suffer some pain and itching as a result of the puncture wounds. The plaintiff was left with obvious scarring, which was visible when the plaintiff wore a bathing suit. The plaintiff, formerly a dog lover, became afraid of dogs and suffered some anxiety when approached by dogs. The Court ultimately awarded $28,000 in general damages (approximately $31,500 in 2022 dollars):

[14] Ms. Camilleri seeks general damages in the $30,000 to $35,000 range. The quantum of general damage awards in dog bite cases varies greatly depending on the severity of the bite and the trauma suffered by the dog bite victim.

[...]

[18] There can be no doubt that the effects of this incident have created significant trauma for the plaintiff. In addition, she continues to suffer some pain and itching as a result of the puncture wounds. Further, I infer that because medical professionals made the decision not to stitch the wounds for fear of infection, the wounds have not healed as they might have if stitched. As such, the plaintiff is left with obvious scarring. Although it can be covered up, the scarring is visible when she wears a bathing suit. The plaintiff, formerly a dog lover, is now afraid of dogs and suffers some anxiety when approached by dogs both as a result of her own fears and because of her dog Chico.

[19] I agree with the plaintiff’s counsel that this case is somewhat factually similar to Somerville v. Malloy, where the plaintiff was awarded $20,000 in general damages. While the chihuahua in the case at bar did not die, it appears that Ms. Camilleri suffered more serious injuries than the plaintiff in Somerville v. Malloy. As such, I accept the submissions of plaintiff’s counsel that a similar quantum of damages would be reasonable in this case. Applying the inflation formula suggested, I order that general damages in the amount of $28,000 are payable by the defendant. In addition, the defendant is ordered to pay the OHIP subrogated claim of $307.07.

In Liu and Yi v. Demasi, 2012 ONSC 4061 (CanLII), the plaintiff was bitten by a dog on his right inner arm, his outer arm, his right forearm, his left calf, and his right flank. Doctors opined that the plaintiff was restricted from running due to pain from the scar. He also experienced anxiety and self-consciousness when wearing short sleeves due to the arm scars. However, no psychiatric or psychological records establishing this were available. No defence was filed. The Court, giving the plaintiff the benefit of the doubt and accepting his reported injuries, assessed general damages at $30,000 (approximately $35,500 in 2022 dollars), $15,000 for loss of income (approximately $17,800 in 2022 dollars), $866 for future scar revision (approximately $1,020 in 2022 dollars), $2,504.60 for housekeeping (approximately $3,000 in 2022 dollars), $3,000 for the Family Law claim (approximately $3,560 in 2022 dollars), and $550 for out-of-pocket expenses (approximately $650 in 2022 dollars).

In Meloche v. Bezaire, 2005 CanLII 6051 (ON SC), the Court assessed general damages at $30,000.00 (approximately $35,500 in 2022 dollars) for injuries that included two large bite wounds and three puncture wounds from a dog. The scars were noticeable. For several months, the plaintiff had to rest and was unable to perform household tasks. The plaintiff was also unable to engage in pastimes such as cycling and walking due to pain from the injuries and fear of dogs. However, her fear of dogs was found to be subsiding. The Court also awarded aggravated damages in the amount of $10,000 (approximately $13,800 in 2022 dollars), and compensation to the plaintiff for her out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of $361.46 (approximately $490 in 2022 dollars).

[11] In assessing damages for pain and suffering and having reviewed the case law in this respect, I am satisfied that the female plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of $30,000 with respect to the injuries suffered as a result of the dog bites. I include the length of time that she experienced pain, the ongoing trauma with respect to dogs being at large, and the visible scaring.

[12] In the Statement of Claim the female plaintiff has requested aggravated damages related to the actions or lack thereof by the defendant. Clearly the defendant was aware of the propensity of these animals to cause injury and in fact, knew of prior incidents where the plaintiff had received cuts to her clothing and that she had been knocked down and took no steps to restrict the animals future activities which in due course, resulted in this claim due to the incident in April of 2003. In my view, these actions and her subsequent lack of response clearly support an award for aggravated damages which I assess in the sum of $10,000.

[13] In addition, the male plaintiff is suing under the Family Law Act as he was required to take over the housekeeping chores and also, was unable to attend to the usual social activities which he and his wife enjoyed for a period of three to four months, on a limited basis, this is ongoing. In my view, he is entitled to damages in the sum of $3,000.

[14] The female plaintiff shall also be entitled to recover on a subrogated basis claims pursuant to OHIP in the amount of $596.74.

[15] The plaintiff shall also be entitled to recover the out-of-pocket expenses in the amount of $361.46. Lastly, the plaintiff has submitted a Bill of Costs in the sum of $7,055.41 to be found at Tab 5 and I will award costs in this amount against the defendant.

In Strom v. White, 1994 CanLII 7342 (ON SC), a dog knocked down and bit the face of the six year old plaintiff. The plaintiff’s face was torn around the mouth and the scars were obvious when viewed up close. The plaintiff became afraid of dogs and experienced nightmares and bed wetting. Although the plaintiff suffered some mental distress it was not expected to have long-lasting effects. The Court awarded $22,000 in general damages (approximately $37,000 in 2022 dollars):

This is a case where a six-year-old boy was knocked down and was severely bitten about his mouth by a vicious dog. The boy suffered physical and mental pain. His face had been torn in the area of the mouth and three lacerations had to be sutured to repair the damage. In addition, there were also various other cuts and abrasions. The boy was unable to escape the dog's clutches and was overcome with fear and experienced shock.

When seen in court on September 29, 1994, it was noted that the scars had healed nicely and that the scars were almost obscure. However, the scarring was still apparent when viewed up close, and given the period of time that has lapsed since the incident, the appearance of the scars will not likely change to any significant degree. The plaintiff will be left with a permanent cosmetic deformity.

The plaintiff, Robby Strom, suffered mental distress as a result of the physical injuries. He developed a fear of dogs, experienced nightmares and had episodes of bed-wetting. There was also some evidence of peer rejection. This infliction of mental suffering, which ensued the physical injury, cannot be said to be too remote. Fortunately the mental stress has now subsided and is not expected to have any permanent effects.

[...]

In arriving at a global figure which represents the non- pecuniary loss to the plaintiff, a trial judge will consider real and substantial future possibilities, both positive and negative, which could impact on the plaintiff's quality of life.

In considering all of the above factors, I assess the non- pecuniary general damages of the plaintiff, Robert Edward Strom, at $22,000.

In Curwen v. Srivathsan, 2019 ONSC 6547 (CanLII), the 15-year-old plaintiff was bitten by the defendants' dog on her face, neck, and forearms. At the age of twenty, she carried visible scars on her face and had anxiety about her appearance, due to the remaining scars. She was required to avoid sun exposure. Zoe experienced stress about interviews for summer jobs and about having her photograph taken. The Court accepted the seriousness of the injuries suffered by Zoe, as well as her ongoing anxiety relating to dogs and to her appearance. However, there was limited medical evidence regarding Zoe’s current circumstances. Based on the evidence and the range of damages awarded in similar cases, the Court found that a reasonable amount for general damages for the injury suffered by Zoe was $37,500.00 (approximately $39,800 in 2022 dollars):

[17] Zoe is currently twenty years of age and is in her third year at the University of Western Ontario. She was fifteen years old at the time of the incident. She testified that she continues to experience panic attacks when triggered by stressful situations. She feels uncomfortable around dogs and avoids them. Zoe has anxiety about her appearance, due to the remaining scars. She is required to avoid sun exposure. Zoe experiences stress about interviews for summer jobs and about having her photograph taken. She has been prescribed medication for her anxiety. Zoe has seen a counsellor at school and believes she would benefit from further psychotherapy. Before the incident, Zoe did not suffer from anxiety and did not have any significant health concerns.

[18] Christine and Wayne have also noticed changes in Zoe. She “panics” when she sees large dogs and has limited interactions with dogs, including the family dog. Zoe worries about attending camp or social events, wondering what other people might think of her scars.

[19] I accept the seriousness of the injuries suffered by Zoe, as well as her ongoing anxiety relating to dogs and to her appearance. However, there was limited medical evidence regarding Zoe’s current circumstances. Based on the evidence and the range of damages awarded in similar cases, I find that a reasonable amount for general damages for the injury suffered by Zoe is $37,500.00.

In Zhan v. Kumar, 2008 CanLII 12501 (ON SC), the plaintiff was bitten by a dog and suffered multiple lacerations over both cheeks and the nose area. Most of the lacerations were superficial and healed well. There was a right cheek laceration that had a small flap elevation. That laceration required stitches and further surgery. He went through lengthy medical treatment including two operations on his face. He had some residual numbness and pain although the scars are not particularly noticeable. As a result of the injuries, he was depressed and took some prescription medication for his depression and sleeplessness. The plaintiff testified that the upset from the injury caused sufficient strain on his marriage that he eventually separated from his wife and daughter. The plaintiff was awarded the sum of $35,000.00 in general damages (approximately $44,200 in 2022 dollars) and $4,000 in pecuniary loss (approximately $5,000 in 2022 dollars) for the injuries resulting from the attack.

In Moretto v Nicolini-Femia, 2017 ONSC 3945 (CanLII), a young woman had been bitten by a dog when she was a teenager, and ended up with significant scarring and damage to her face. The facial scarring was immediately noticeable at a conversational level of 2-3 feet away and more noticeable on smiling. Make-up did camouflage the scar to some extent. The plaintiff advanced a claim that she had lost a competitive advantage in the workplace as a result of suffering facial scarring. The Court found that there was no compensable loss of competitive advantage proven by the plaintiff. The general damages were assessed at $45,000 (approximately $49,800 in 2022 dollars) plus future cost of care for laser treatments at $10,000 (approximately $11,000 in 2022 dollars) and sunscreen at $2,500 (approximately $2,800 in 2022 dollars):

[47] The testimony of the plaintiff is that she is still considering the option of surgery. She is very self-conscious about the scarring. The incident happened when she was 15 years of age. She testified that she “felt ugly” and she “felt terrible about it [the scarring].” She described how at school she was ridiculed, teased by other classmates and students. She testified that the bullying reached the point that she did not want to go to school. After the extended period of healing she wore make-up to try to hide the scar. She nevertheless felt people she encountered were staring at her whether at school or in her part-time jobs as a waitress and server. She testified how her low self-esteem and confidence became worse after the dog bite and her belief that she was ugly in the eyes of others. It is fair to assume that this plaintiff like many young teenagers and young people put a high degree of importance in their appearance to gain social acceptance. Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that the plaintiff’s upset and some loss of self-esteem and disdain for her looks are understandable in all the circumstances.

[...]

Assessment of General Damages

[62] Both counsel provided a number of cases supporting their respective positions on general damages. While I have reviewed the various cases submitted, I did not find them particularly useful as the assessment of damages were very much case specific.

[63] After reviewing all the evidence, including the findings, diagnosis and prognosis of Dr. Peters and Dr. Krajden, I find that a reasonable assessment of the General Damages for the physical injury to the plaintiff including pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and permanent scarring to the left nasal labial fold of the cheek of her face is $ 40,000.

[64] In addition thereto, I have also assessed General Damages for the psychological component of the dog bite incident, including nightmares, flashbacks, reduced self –esteem and confidence, a phobia towards dogs and personal embarrassment in the sum of $ 5,000.

[65] Accordingly, the total award for General Damages is $ 45,000.

Kent v. Laverdiere, 2011 ONSC 5411 (CanLII) represents the highest damages award in the quantum range. The child plaintiff was severely attacked by several dogs at the age of 12 years old. The quantum of the damages was agreed upon and approved by the Court as follows: $125,000 for general damages (approximately $150,400 in 2022 dollars); $100,000.00 for damages for future loss of income/loss of competitive advantage (approximately $120,300 in 2022 dollars); $15,000 for the Family Law Act claim of the plaintiff's mother (approximately $18,000 in 2022 dollars); and $5,000.00 for the Family Law Act claim of the plaintiff's sister (approximately $6,000 in 2022 dollars):

[1] The infant Plaintiff, Jynnie Kent (“Jynnie”), brings this action for compensation for damages suffered as a result of an attack by dogs owned by her grandmother, the Defendant, Heather Laverdiere (“Laverdiere”), which occurred October 26, 2003.

[2] By order of Justice Low dated November 17, 2005, the Plaintiffs’s claims and the crossclaim of the Defendant, the Corporation of the Township of Uxbridge (“the Township”), against the Defendant Bert Tindall was settled. As well, the Plaintiffs’s claims against the Defendant Dennis Laverdiere as well as the crossclaims asserted against him were dismissed without costs.

[3] By order of Justice Moore dated 13 September 2010, the action of Jason Low against Laverdiere and the Township was dismissed on a without costs basis. As well, the quantum of the damages was agreed upon and approved by the Court as follows; $125,000 for general damages; $100,000.00 for damages for future loss of income/loss of competitive advantage; $15,000 for the Family Law Act claim of Shelley Low; and $5,000.00 for the Family Law Act claim of Jyssie Kent.

[4] Thus, the trial proceeded before me on the issue of liability. A joint book of documents was filed as exhibit 2 and reference will be made to the various documents contained in that book.

Background

[5] Jynnie Kent was born October 21, 1992 and her sister, Jyssie Kent, was born September 25, 1991. They live with their mother the Plaintiff Shelley Low (“Low”) in Pickering, Ontario. At the time of these events, Jynnie was 11 and Jyssie was 12 years of age.

[...]

[15] As Jynnie turned to leave, she noticed one of the dogs, Ulcka, staring into her eyes. Another dog pulled Jynnie’s arm and she fell to the ground and blacked out. When she woke up, she was naked and covered in mud. The skin on her legs was ripped off and she described that she was being “devoured” by the dogs. One of them dragged her by her hair and another had a grip on her and was pulling in the opposite direction. It was as if she was involved in a game of tug of war.

[16] Ulcka grabbed Jynnie by her throat and blood started coming out of her mouth. The dogs were licking the blood off of her face and Jynnie thought she was going to die. Jynnie was screaming out for help. She saw her grandfather through the kitchen window and he ran out of the house. He came into the pen and pulled the dogs off of her. Jynnie’s grandmother came into the backyard and as soon as she started to yell at the dogs, they went away.