ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) ) Defendant. ) J. Keenan Sprague, for the Plaintiff REASONS FOR DECISION

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE ) ) ) ) Plaintiff ) ) ) ) Defendant. ) J. Keenan Sprague, for the Plaintiff REASONS FOR DECISION"

Lee Butler
5 years ago
Views:

1 CITATION: Camilleri v. Brunet, 2016 ONSC 7312 COURT FILE NO.: CV DATE: ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Nicole Camilleri J. Keenan Sprague, for the Plaintiff Plaintiff and Lillian Brunet Defendant No one appearing for the Defendant HEARD: November 17, ONSC 7312 (CanLII GILMORE J.: REASONS FOR DECISION Overview [1] The plaintiff Nicole Camilleri and her chihuahua Chico were bitten by a large dog owned by the defendant. This is an assessment of damages since the case was undefended. A judgment was issued on July 22, 2015, indicating that the defendant was liable for damages as a result of the dog bite and that the matter would proceed to trial on the issue of damages. Costs were reserved to the trial judge. [2] As the matter was called to trial on short notice, Ms. Camilleri gave her evidence by telephone. Background [3] Ms. Camilleri is 24 years of age. She resides in Sudbury and attends nursing school at Cambrian College. [4] In May 2012, she was living at 14 Riverside Drive in Sudbury. She was a student at that time as well. She lived alone on a second floor apartment. In the late morning or early afternoon of May 15, 2012 she was getting ready to go shopping. She took Chico outside

2 Page: 2 into the back yard before she went shopping. While Chico was in the back yard, the dog in the basement apartment pushed through the back door and came out to the back yard. According to Ms. Camilleri the neighbour s dog was a bull mastiff that weighed over 100 pounds. Chico weighed eight pounds. She testified that the bull mastiff s head was as big as Chico. [5] When Ms. Camilleri saw the large dog rushing towards her and Chico she bent over to pick Chico up. As she did, the neighbour s dog bit her in the buttocks. The dog s owner came running out but it took 30 seconds to a minute for the owner to get the dog away from Ms. Camilleri. Ms. Camilleri was screaming and began to run away. The neighbour s dog then started after Chico. He grabbed Chico in his jaws and ran around the yard several times before the dog s owner was able to remove Chico. Ms. Camilleri then put Chico into her apartment. [6] Ms. Camilleri described the dog bite as three puncture holes, the largest one being one to two inches wide and the other two about half an inch to an inch wide. After the incident, Ms. Camilleri was taken to the hospital by ambulance. The emergency record filed by Ms. Camilleri indicates that her wounds were cleaned and dressed and a saline solution applied to flush out the bacteria. She did not receive stitches because of a concern by hospital medical staff that stitching would simply enclose any bacteria which may have gotten into the wounds from the dog s mouth. As such, the wounds were left open to heal ONSC 7312 (CanLII [7] Ms. Camilleri did not return to the hospital for any further treatment after that day. She was instructed to and followed the doctor s instructions to change her gauze dressing twice a day. She testified that she wore the dressing for a couple of months because it took a considerable time for the wounds to heal. She was given a penicillin-based drug and told to take extra strength Tylenol. [8] She described the pain following the bite as quite acute for the first couple of months. During the first few weeks after the bite she lost some movement in the wounded area and could only wear yoga pants because she was not able to put on regular pants. Even after the healing process, Ms. Camilleri continued to suffer occasional sharp pain and some itching in the scarred areas. This is irritating to her because of the pain and because it forces her to remember this difficult and emotional event. [9] Ms. Camilleri produced a recent photo of the healed bites. This photograph is located at Tab 8 of her Damages Brief. It can be easily seen that the scars have not healed flush with her skin but protrude above the skin and still look very red. The largest puncture in particular is very noticeable. Ms. Camilleri testified that the scars are not normally visible because she is wearing pants. However, they are visible when she wears a bathing suit. This is bothersome to her as people often ask her what they are and she feels compelled to describe what happened and relive the event. Ms. Camilleri also felt self-conscious about her boyfriend seeing these scars on her buttocks. [10] Ms. Camilleri testified that she has not seen a psychologist or psychiatrist for any followup treatment. She has always been a dog lover but is now very afraid of big dogs. On one

3 Page: 3 occasion she was caught by surprise when a dog jumped up and barked at her from inside a car. She suffered a form of anxiety attack from this encounter. [11] With respect to Chico, Animal Control came to Ms. Camilleri s apartment while she was at the hospital. They found him shaking under her bed. He received 22 stitches from the veterinarian. The defendant paid her veterinarian s bill which Ms. Camilleri thought was in the range of $1,500 to $2,000. [12] Before the incident Chico was fine with socializing with larger dogs; now he is afraid of all dogs. Ms. Camilleri must pick him up whenever they encounter another dog and he is much harder to manage overall. [13] This event was no doubt traumatic for Ms. Camilleri. She did not attempt to exaggerate or embellish her injuries or her emotions with respect to this incident, and I accept her evidence without reservation ONSC 7312 (CanLII Analysis [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. [15] Counsel referred me to the case of Chatterton v. Cowan, 2010 ONSC In that case, the plaintiff was bitten by a large Alaskan shepherd who pinned her to the ground. She suffered two tooth punctures. The event was described as traumatic for the plaintiff who had to take sleeping pills for a period of time following the event and remained afraid of big dogs. The range of damages requested was between $15,000 to $20,000. The Court awarded general damages of $8,500 plus $2,000 for costs and a small amount for loss income and the OHIP subrogated claim. [16] Counsel for the plaintiff also referred the Court to a case which is factually similar to the case at bar. In Somerville v. Malloy, 1999 O.J. No SCJ, the Court awarded the plaintiff $20,000 in general damages when a pit bull attacked him and his pet chihuahua. The chihuahua died, the plaintiff required medical treatment for a bite on his elbow and lacerations to his arms. The bite left him with a small visible scar and occasional pain. He was emotionally traumatized from his injuries and the killing of his pet. He had nightmares and problems sleeping. Counsel for the plaintiff reminded the Court that while the facts in Somerville are similar, the case is somewhat dated and there should be a consideration for inflation. Using an inflation calculator from the Bank of Canada website, counsel submitted that $20,000 in general damages in 1999 would now be $27,521. [17] Finally, in Strom v. White, O.R. (3d 205, 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.

4 Page: 4 [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 $ ONSC 7312 (CanLII [20] The plaintiff also seeks partial indemnity costs of $6, This is broken down into fees of $2,959.00, counsel fee of $300.00, HST of $423.67, disbursements of $2, and HST of $ The time spent and rates appear reasonable in all of the circumstances. As well, there were significant disbursements given the medical records that were required. As such, costs are awarded to the plaintiff and payable by the defendant in the amount of $6, [21] The defendant is not required to approve the order resulting from this judgment. Released: November 23, 2016 Madam Justice C.A. Gilmore

5 CITATION: Camilleri v. Brunet, 2016 ONSC 7312 BETWEEN: Nicole Camilleri and Lillian Brunet REASONS FOR DECISION Plaintiff Defendant 2016 ONSC 7312 (CanLII Madam Justice C.A. Gilmore Released: November 23, 2016

Argued May 9, 2017 Decided September 5, Before Judges Messano and Espinosa.

Argued May 9, 2017 Decided September 5, Before Judges Messano and Espinosa. NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding