BC INJURY LAW – Page 58 – The MacIsaac Group of Law Firms

$90,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Partially Disabling Chronic Pain

Written by admin on March 9, 2016. Posted in ICBC Chronic Pain Cases, ICBC Liability (fault) Cases, ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for chronic pain following a motor vehicle collision.
In today’s case (Swieczko v. Nehme) the Plaintiff was involved in an intersection collision in 2011. The Plaintiff committed to the intersection on a green light but could not turn due to oncoming traffic. The Plaintiff waited until the light turned a stale yellow and began the turn. The Defendant, who was in the oncoming curb lane, came through on what was likely a red light and the vehicles collided. The Court found the Defendant fully liable for the collision.
The Plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries which resulted in chronic symptoms. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $90,000 Madam Justice Koenigsberg provided the following reasons:

[40] Mr. Swieczko suffered significant soft tissue injuries as a result of the accident. The clear medical evidence from the plaintiff’s orthopedic surgeon, Dr. G.M. McKensie, is that Mr. Swieczko’s soft tissue injuries are now chronic and permanent, presenting as moderate to severe pain in the neck, mid-back and lower back with persistent flare-ups as a result of overtime work, attempts at physically interacting with his growing one-year-old daughter and attempts to reintegrate previously enjoyed recreational activities. His prognosis is poor. Dr. McKensie testified that while there are some positive prognostic indicators, such as the likelihood that his function will improve with an appropriate pain/activity program; these are outweighed by the negative indicators, such as length of time Mr. Swieczko has experienced pain and the fact that his body has become sensitized to it.

[41] Dr. Ashleigh Stelzer-Chilton, Mr. Swieczko’s general practitioner, testified that Mr. Swieczko will never return to his pre-accident baseline. She believes he can improve his function and in that sense she hopes for a decrease in his pain with some activities.

[42] Mr. Swieczko was 27 years old at the time of the Accident. He is now 31. He has been engaged in the video game industry for close to nine years. He began as a “quality assurance” tester. This is a sedentary job, essentially playing games to ferret out problems before the games are released to the public. It requires concentration and repetitive tasks. It was described as being a form of detective work. The work often requires overtime as projects reach launching time; that is, 10-to 16-hour days. This career is generally somewhat insecure, as most of the employment is on contract. Mr. Swieczko has been laid off and re-hired several times.

[43] Mr. Swieczko’s ambition has been to be a game designer and currently he has landed his dream job. Mr. Swieczko is obviously a talented, hard-working, ambitious young man. He appears to have an above average ability to get re-hired as needed at his places of employment and lately has been promoted. However, all of the medical evidence indicates that he will have difficulty maintaining and progressing in his career to the extent that it relies on individuals having the stamina to intermittently work long days. Mr. Swieczko has on occasion been unable to work the required overtime and when he has done so, he can only do it for a day or so without resorting to strong pain medication such as Tylenol 3s. Further, Mr. Swieczko has been at risk in the past of medicating himself with alcohol, although he appears at this point to have that risk under control.

[44] Mr. Swieczko and his partner, Ms. Philips, have a child who is just over one year old now. While providing both of them a great deal of joy, this has resulted in two complicating factors because each is suffering from chronic pain from the Accident. The first is that, given Mr. Swieczko’s demanding career, which requires that he must utilize (at this point) all of his stamina to maintain, he has become more limited in what time and activity he can devote to his daughter. However, the evidence is clear that Ms. Philips has been and still is unable to do several necessary tasks associated with housekeeping and child care – such as physically lifting and holding their child. Thus, up to now Mr. Swieczko has shouldered more of those tasks than he would have, which apparently limits the downtime his neck and back need to recover from strain. This in turn has required more pain medication and led to frustration.

[45] It must be recognized that this state of affairs is costing Mr. Swieczko psychologically. He is far less able to socialize and enjoy family get-togethers – or physical activity that he enjoyed before the Accident. Thus, Mr. Swieczko is struggling with frustration and emotional despondency from time to time as he contemplates the immediate future, wherein he may not be able to be an active participant in his daughter’s physical recreational life. It was clear from Mr. Swieczko’s evidence that he was taken aback by receiving his poor prognosis in relation to living relatively pain-free and being able to do what he did before. In particular, he had ambitions of participating in such physical activities as karate with his daughter as she matures. He is now very unlikely to be able to do this…

The most significant factor in this case making the assessment of general damages suggested by the plaintiff more appropriate than that suggested by the defendant is the severity and chronicity of pain, which combines with Mr. Swieczko’s increasing emotional struggle over the impairments to his family, marital and social relationships. Adding to this is Mr. Swieczko’s stoicism, which, in this case, has meant he has and continues to work longer and harder to achieve his career goals, but at a significant cost in pain and resort to strong medications.

[52] I assess his non-pecuniary damages at $90,000.

$30,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Aggravation of Chronic Pain

Written by admin on March 2, 2016. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for the aggravation of a long standing chronic pain disorder.
In today’s case (Ben-Yosef v. Dasanjh) the Plaintiff was struck in 2011 by the Defendant’s vehicle while crossing a cross-walk. The Plaintiff suffered from a pre-existing and longstanding chronic pain disorder. The collision resulted in soft tissue injuries and aggravated the pre-existing condition. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $30,000 Mr. Justice Bowden provided the following reasons:

[52] I am not prepared to attach much weight to the plaintiff’s description of the change in his condition following the 2011 accident without corroboration from someone other than Ms. Ben-Yosef and their son.

[53] The evidence shows that the majority of the symptoms that the plaintiff attributes to injuries from the 2011 accident probably were present before that accident. The expert evidence is that the plaintiff was suffering from chronic pain syndrome before the 2011 accident. It appears that he was taking anti-inflammatory drugs before that accident as well as medication for hypertension and pain.

[54] The 2011 accident was not significant. While the plaintiff was knocked down in a cross walk, he described the event to his family doctor as being “bumped”. He said that he got up, exchanged information with the defendant and then continued on his way to do some shopping before going home.

[55] Nevertheless, I accept that the plaintiff suffered some soft tissue injuries to his lower back and left hip and that the 2011 accident caused some aggravation to his pre-existing chronic pain…

[60] While I accept that the plaintiff’s pre-existing condition was somewhat aggravated by the 2011 accident, he had developed chronic pain syndrome before that accident presumably following his injuries in the 1998 accident. Some of his continuing symptoms also appear to be related to the degeneration which has occurred in his spine which is unrelated to the 2011 accident.

[61] It is difficult to differentiate the impact of the 1998 accident and the 2011 accident on the plaintiff’s quality and enjoyment of life. It appears that the 1998 accident left him unable to work, caused him intermittent pain that ultimately became chronic and limited his activities. The 2011 accident aggravated his condition somewhat but the degree of aggravation cannot be determined with any certainty.

[62] I have concluded that in the circumstances of this case and considering the factors in Athey, an award of $30,000 is appropriate.

ICBC Ordered to Pay $350,000 in Punitive Damages for False Fraud Allegation

Written by admin on March 1, 2016. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, ordering ICBC to pay $350,000 in punitive damages for malicious prosecution following assertions that the Plaintiff acted fraudulently following a pedestrian collision.
In today’s case (Arsenovski v. Bodin) the Plaintiff was walking with her husband when he was struck by a vehicle. The Plaintiff was not struck by the vehicle but did fall down and suffer some modest injuries during the incident and she reported this to ICBC. Specifically she told ICBC that “the last thing I remember was stepping off the curb to cross the street. I don’t know how far we had walked on the street. The next thing I remember was being on the pavement“.
ICBC, through a Special Investigations Unit officer employed with them, requested that Crown Counsel prosecute the Plaintiff for fraud as she was not struck by the vehicle. Charges for making a false statement to ICBC were approved.
The problem is the statement was not false. The charges were stayed on the day of the start of the criminal trial.
The Plaintiff sued ICBC for malicious prosecution and succeeded with Madam Justice Griffin finding that ICBC’s false fraud allegations and actions were “so high-handed, reprehensible and malicious that it offends this Court’s sense of decency“. In finding $350,000 in punitive damages were appropriate the Court provided the following reasons:

$40,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Bicep Tendon and Soft Tissue Injuries

Written by admin on February 29, 2016. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing damages for a bicep tendon injury along with some soft tissue damage.
In today’s case (Pavan v. Guolo) the Plaintiff was involved in a 2010 T-bone collision caused by the Defendant. The Plaintiff suffered a strain to the tendons in his right bicep along with soft tissue injuries to his shoulder and low back. The Plaintiff missed little time from work but some of his symptoms persisted at the time of trial albeit not significantly. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $40,000 Mr. Justice Butler provided the following reasons:

[21] Counsel for both parties provided detailed written argument to explain why I should accept their positions regarding the nature of the plaintiff’s injuries and the duration of the symptoms. I thank them for the thorough and detailed argument. I much prefer the defendants’ approach to the assessment of causation and analysis of the evidence. In other words, it is preferable to consider the three symptomatic areas separately and assess the development of symptoms in light of all of the evidence including the limited medical evidence. When I do that, I make the following findings of fact regarding injuries and the duration of symptoms:

1) Right Arm: The plaintiff suffered a strain to tendons in his right biceps. That injury has improved significantly over time, but has not resolved and will likely not do so. However, it is not disabling and does not significantly impact the plaintiff’s activities. It still causes the plaintiff momentary discomfort when he performs certain activities.

2) Right Shoulder: The plaintiff suffered a grade 2 strain to his neck, upper back and right shoulder. This was the most serious injury sustained in the accident. That injury substantially resolved within about 18 months of the accident. The accident left the shoulder susceptible to what the plaintiff calls flare-ups or aggravations. The plaintiff does not have ongoing persistent pain or discomfort. His occasional flare-ups do not last for long and are not disabling.

3) Low Back: The plaintiff suffered a very mild low back strain in the accident. That injury resolved in a few months. The incidents of low back pain suffered by the plaintiff since that time are unrelated to the injuries suffered in the accident.

…

[45] Of course, the appropriate award for non-pecuniary loss must take into account, all of the particular circumstances of the plaintiff before the court. The cases cited by counsel were helpful as a guide. I do not propose to examine and compare those cases with the facts I have found here. I will note that the cases relied on by the defendants involved circumstances that are somewhat closer to the facts I have found with regard to the nature of the soft tissue injuries with an exception. I have concluded that the plaintiff has ongoing difficulties with his right arm, albeit relatively minor, and that his right shoulder can still have flare-ups, which are contributed to by the injuries suffered in the accident. Further, the cases cited by the defendants are somewhat dated.

[46] When I consider all of the relevant factors in light of the facts I have found, I conclude that a fair award for non-pecuniary damages is $40,000.

$31,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Orbital Floor Fracture

Written by admin on February 22, 2016. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Prince George Registry, assessing damages for an orbital floor fracture at $31,000.
In today’s case (Bunna (Guardian ad litem of) v. Bunah) the Plaintiff, who was 5 at the time of the collision, was involved in a 2012 crash. He suffered a fracture to his orbital floor along with some lingering anxiety following the crash. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $31,000 Madam Justice Watchuk provided the following reasons:

[13] The most serious injury sustained in the accident was a displaced fracture of the orbital floor on the right side of his face. It also healed. The orbital floor is adjacent to the maxillary sinus and it is not known if there was also a fracture of the maxillary sinus. As surgery was not required, there was no further investigation of the fracture and possible fracture which would be adjacent to each other in this young boy’s facial area.

[14] The extensive swelling was described by a doctor on February 20, 2012 to be “severe swelling in the right facial region with severe bruising, almost unable to open his right eye”. The bruising lasted a maximum of six months. There has been no scarring.

[15] In summary, during the night in the hospital in Mackenzie, Julien had pain and cried quite a bit as he did on the way home to Quesnel. He had some pain for a few weeks, and for few months he had occasional pain if his face was touched. He had some anxiety for about six months following the accident. The long-term effect has been upset and stress and crying from the worry when his mother is late. He worries that she has been in a car accident if she is late. This has occurred ongoingly, and a couple of times in 2015, most recently in November 2015…

[18] With regard to the nature of the injury, the most serious is the fracture of the orbital floor on the right side of the face. It was accompanied by extensive bruising and swelling. It resolved without surgery within six months.

[19] With regard to loss or impairment of life, emotional suffering and severity of duration of pain, due to Julien’s young age at the time, just turned five years old, the evidence is obtained primarily from his aunt’s observations in her frequent visits with him. From the descriptions, Julien is a stoic and resilient child and recovered quickly, also within six months. The only lingering effect is that he becomes fearful and upset when his mother is late in arriving to pick him up because he is worried that there has been another accident. This fear has occurred repeatedly. In 2015 it happened twice when his mother was late, most recently in November 2015…

[23] In this case particular weight is given to the plaintiff’s age, his stoicism in the circumstances of the accident, and the emotional suffering of such a young plaintiff. Non-pecuniary damages are assessed at $31,000.

$60,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Lingering Soft Tissue Injuries

Written by admin on February 16, 2016. Posted in ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases.

Adding to this site’s archived soft tissue injury database, reasons for judgement were released this week by the BC Supreme Court, Kelowna Registry, assessing non-pecuniary damages of $60,000 for lingering upper body soft tissue injuries.
In this week’s case (Olson v. Yelland) the plaintiff was involved in a 2012 rear end collision. The Defendant admitted fault. The Plaintiff sustained soft tissue injuries to her neck, mid back and shoulders which continued to pose problems at the time of trial. In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $60,000 Mr. Justice Weatherill provided the following reasons:

[117] On the whole of the evidence, I accept that the plaintiff received soft tissue injuries to her neck, trapezius muscles and mid-back and headaches that continue to negatively affect her function to some degree.

[118] I find that her pre-Accident lower back and left knee conditions would have significantly affected her ability to function at home and at work in any event of the Accident.

[119] I find that prior to the Accident and in any event of the Accident, her competitive employability and ability to perform homemaking tasks had already been significantly compromised. The soft tissue injuries she received from the Accident were superimposed on her Original Position and made it more difficult for her to manage her day-to-day activities.

[120] I find that the plaintiff has made significant recovery from the effects of the Accident within the past three years, but has been left with ongoing neck, mid-back, trapezius pain and related headaches.

[121] The injuries the plaintiff is left with, and that I accept, are soft tissue injuries to her neck, mid-back and trapezius muscles. They have caused increased frequency and intensity of headaches.

[122] I accept that these issues continue to affect her, and likely will continue for two to three more years. However, I find that the Accident related injuries pale in comparison to the unrelated issues she has with her low back and left knee…

[132] In the circumstances, and following the principles set out in Stapley, I find that a reasonable award for general damages is $60,000. As will be seen below, within this sum I have included the plaintiff’s claim for reduced homemaking abilities.

"Reasonable Efforts" Identifying At Fault Motorist Cannot Be Determined by way of Summary Trial

Written by admin on February 11, 2016. Posted in BCSC Civil Rule 9, Civil Procedure.

Adding to this site’s database of ICBC Unidentified Motorist prosecutions, reasons for judgement were published today by the BC Supreme Court, Kamloops Registry, finding that the Summary Judgement rule cannot be used to determine if a plaintiff made all reasonable efforts to identify the at fault driver which is a prerequisite to a successful unidentified motorist prosecution.
In today’s case (Lapointe v. ICBC) the Plaintiff used the summary judgement rule to strip ICBC’s defence alleging the Plaintiff failed to make all reasonable efforts to identify the at fault motorist. ICBC appealed and Mr. Justice Myers overturned the earlier ruling noting the Court can only address this issue when determining liability and cannot address this defense in a piecemeal fashion. In reaching this decision the Court provided the following reasons:

[8] The issue in this appeal is purely a legal one. The standard of review is therefore correctness: Ralph’s Auto Supply (B.C.) Ltd. v. Ken Ransford Holding Ltd., 2011 BCSC 999, at para. 7.

[9] I do not agree with the plaintiff’s argument which artificially separates the cause of action against the unknown driver or owner from the claim against ICBC. Although it is common practice to name John Does as substitutes for the driver and owner, the section does not require that; an action may be brought against ICBC only. It is obvious that there is no John Doe to serve and no default judgment can be taken against the unknown driver or owner. ICBC is fully in control of the defence until the time of judgment or the driver or owner is found. I do not think there is a separate claim against under ICBC under s. 24 as the plaintiff maintains.

[10] Therefore, a decision on s. 24(5) alone is not determinative of a claim and cannot result in a judgment; it is only a decision on an issue. On the basis of Century Services, it is therefore not amenable to a Rule 9-6 application.

[11] That is sufficient to allow the appeal but there is a further related point (not argued by ICBC) which reinforces this conclusion. The obligation to attempt to locate the driver or owner is a continuing one in this sense: if facts come to light that make the identity ascertainable, the plaintiff is no doubt obligated to follow up on that information. And, if the identities become known, section 24(6) provides that the driver or owner must to be substituted for ICBC in spite of any limitation period. The wording of section 24(5) is that “a judgment against the corporation must not be given unless the court is satisfied that…”. This contemplates a single judgment.

[12] I therefore do not think that a separate decision on section 24(5) can be made in advance of a decision on liability as a whole. Put another way, the time at which the court must be satisfied as to the factors in s. 24(5) is the time of the determination of liability for the accident. The opposite interpretation would allow for a scenario where s. 24(5) is determined in favour of a plaintiff, and the driver becomes known before the trial on liability. It would then make the substitution for ICBC impossible as the matter would be res judicata.

[13] I therefore allow the appeal.

$70,000 Non-Pecuniary Assessment for Chronic Neck and Back Soft Tissue Injuries

Written by admin on February 3, 2016. Posted in ICBC Soft Tissue Injury Cases.

Reasons for judgement were released today by the BC Supreme Court, Vancouver Registry, assessing non-pecuniary damages at $70,000 for chronic soft tissue injuries.
In today’s case (Suthakar v. Humble) the Plaintiff was involved in a rear end collision in 2011. She sustained soft tissue injuries to neck, low back and shoulder. The court accepted that the low back injury likely involved her sacroiliac complex. The Plaintiff remained symptomatic at the time of trial and her symptoms were expected to persist causing some interference in her daily functioning.
In assessing non-pecuniary damages at $70,000 Madam Justice Ballance provided the following reasons:

[118] For several years now Ms. Suthakar has struggled with residual symptoms in her neck, left shoulder and low back. Although her symptoms have improved over time and she may enjoy some modest additional improvement in the next while, they have nonetheless persisted and are susceptible to being exacerbated as a result of her work activities and daily domestic duties. Her nagging pain leaves her exhausted at the end of her work shift. When she arrives home, she is usually not able to do much of anything beyond taking a hot shower and resting on the couch with a hot pack. Fortunately for Ms. Suthakar, her symptoms are manageable without medication on her days off.

[119] The ill‑effects of the Accident have adversely impacted the quality and enjoyment of Ms. Suthakar’s interactions with her sons. She is not able to play with them in the same way as before and is quick to anger. Also of significance for this young woman is that her injuries have interfered with her intimate relationship with her husband.

[120] In prior cases, I have observed that enduring pain, even when it is intermittent and mostly low-grade, can compel unwelcome adjustments to one’s work life and lifestyle and cloud the pleasures of life, as it has in Ms. Suthakar’s case. Working in pain during the majority of her shifts has become part of Ms. Suthakar’s everyday work life and is likely to continue for many years to come, if not indefinitely.

[121] I have reviewed the authorities placed before me by counsel. The cases submitted by Ms. Suthakar’s counsel are more instructive than those relied on by the defendants. In any event, the case law only provides general guidelines for what is, at its core, a highly individualized assessment.

[122] Having regard to the Stapley factors and the other case authorities in the context of the evidence in the case at hand, in my opinion, a fair and reasonable award for Ms. Suthakar’s non-pecuniary damages is $70,000.

Court of Appeal Split on Whether Credibility Finding on Misapprehended Evidence Warrants New Trial

Written by admin on January 29, 2016. Posted in Uncategorized.

Reasons for judgement were released today with split reasons but the BC Court of Appeal addressing whether a new trial is warranted where a Court makes an adverse credibility finding based in part on misapprehended evidence.
In today’s case (Zajaczkowski v. Grauer) the Plaintiff was injured in a collision and sued for damages. At trial the Plaintiff’s diminished earning capacity claims were dismissed with the Court finding there were issues with the Plaintiff’s credibility. The trial judge misapprehended some of the Plaintiff’s evidence with respect to his education. The Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed but dissenting reasons were provided finding a a new trial was warranted in these circumstances.
The majority provided the following reasons:
[44]         While the judge clearly accepted the thrust of this evidence, which was evidence of fatigue and pain, he also found that it afforded “an insufficient factual underpinning for any compensation for loss of earning capacity”. In my view, the inability of the trial judge to find a factual underpinning for the claim lay not in an error of law; the trial judge expressly noted, at para. 51, that “a plaintiff need only show a real and substantial possibility of a future event leading to an income loss, in accordance with Perren v. Lalari, 2010 BCCA 140”. The claim for loss of earning capacity failed because the judge found the appellant had not met the evidentiary burden described in Perren. He did not accept the appellant’s own evidence of his limitations. The witnesses provided some anecdotal evidence of occasions when the appellant was limited in his work but that did not establish the appellant was, overall, unable to work as much as he had worked before his injury. As the respondents’ counsel submitted, the impact of the appellant’s lingering pain upon his capacity to work may have been so minimal as to be difficult to assess. I cannot say the trial judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the evidence did not support a claim under this head of damages. I would also dismiss the appeal founded upon this argument.
In dissent Madam Justice Saunders reasoned as follows:
[53]         The question on both past and future earnings loss is not whether the appellant’s income was diminished or will be diminished from that which he had earned before the accident, but whether it was diminished or will be diminished from that which he could have earned but for the accident. It appears that the appellant’s business was thriving, considerable work was available to him and it was, in the vernacular, a time in which he could “make hay”. If the appellant’s earnings were lessened by reason of the injury from the accident, the appellant is entitled to be compensated for the diminishment.
[54]         The evidence of the three witnesses discussed above supports the appellant’s evidence that from time to time his injury limited his hours and intensity of work. If accepted, the evidence of these witnesses alone, and combined with the appellant’s evidence, supported a claim for past wage loss of some amount, and possibly a claim for future wage loss on the capital asset approach of Brown v. Golaiy (1985), 26 B.C.L.R. (3d) 353 (S.C.)per Finch J., although certainly not in the scale claimed by the appellant at trial.
[55]         The judge did not review the evidence of these witnesses in any detail and said only that “I accept the thrust of the evidence from those witnesses, that Mr. Zajaczkowski had less energy and more pain after the accident”. The judge concluded, “Their testimony … did not lead to the further conclusion, that in the result, the Plaintiff worked less overall and earned less overall.”
[56]         It is here, I consider, that the judge’s assessment of the appellant’s credibility creates the impact that requires this court to interfere with the order appealed. In my view, one cannot say that absent the error in that credibility assessment, there would have been such a lack of credit given to the substance of the evidence of these witnesses. In other words, the misapprehension of evidence in the credibility assessment leaks into the result of the trial, with the effect that the order made by the judge in respect to earnings loss cannot stand, in my view.
[57]         In reaching this conclusion I have not addressed the last strong conclusion of the judge concerning evidence of the Balano invoice. I agree that such evidence was understood correctly by the judge, and that alone it could have supported rejection of the appellant’s evidence. However, the judge made the appellant’s evidence of his education one leg of what was a relatively brief discussion of credibility, and that leg is broken.
[58]         I would echo the words of Mr. Justice Hall in Loveridge v. British Columbia, 2007 BCCA 425: “The appellant was entitled to a correct consideration of the full substance of his case”. In the circumstances I have described, I do not consider the appellant received that consideration. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed and a new trial ordered.

Revenge Porn Leads to $100,000 Award in First of its Kind Case in Canada

Written by admin on January 27, 2016. Posted in Uncategorized.

When a person shares sexually explicit images with another in confidence and has that confidence betrayed by the recipient posting the images publicly on line are there recognized grounds to sue for damages? A recent case in Ontario considered this for what I believe to be the first time and found that such actions indeed attract liability under the existing framework of Canadian tort law.
In the recent case ( Jane Doe464533 v. Doe h/t to the Globe and Mail’s Sean Fine for sharing the case) the court set out the following facts

The video was on line for three weeks and the amount of views it received was unknown. Justice Stinson awarded $50,000 in compensatory damages, $25,000 in aggravated damages and a further $25,000 in punitive damages along with interest and costs.
In finding this conduct to be tortious the court concluded that the torts of Breach of Confidence, Intentional Infliction of Mental Distress and Invasion of Privacy were all made out by such behavior.