“A person commits battery when they intentionally inflict unlawful force on another person: Norberg v. Wynrib, 1992 CanLII 65 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226, at p. 246. The court must conclude that the defendant intended to, and did in fact, make physical contact. The contact must be either physically harmful or offensive to the victim’s reasonable sense of dignity: Linden and Feldthusen, Canadian Tort Law, 8th ed. (Markham, Ont.: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2006) (“Canadian Tort Law”), at p. 44; Figueiras v. Toronto (Police Services Board), 2015 ONCA 208, 124 O.R. (3d) 641, at paras. 142-43.
Ana and Ilinca allege that Liviu spanked, hit, beat, slapped, pinched or choked them or dragged them by their hair and that these acts constituted battery. To succeed in this claim, they must prove not only that Liviu committed some or all of these physical acts, but that he did so intentionally and that the contact was harmful or offensive.
Assault
A civil assault is a threat, through words or conduct, to commit battery. The tort of assault exists to protect individuals not only from actual physical harm but from the fear of physical harm: Canadian Tort Law, at pp. 46-47. To prove assault, a plaintiff must show that the defendant intentionally created the apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact: Canadian Tort Law, at pp. 46-47; Costantini v. Costantini, 2013 ONSC 1626, 28 R.F.L. (7th) 356 (“Costantini”), at para. 30.
Ana and Ilinca allege that Liviu assaulted them on March 26, 2005 and on other occasions, by threatening to kill them or seriously hurt them. If they prove that these incidents took place, and that they reasonably feared that he would harm them, then Liviu would be liable for assault.
Breach of fiduciary duty
Parents are obliged to act in their children’s best interests and not exploit the power and authority they hold over them: M.(K.) v. M.(H.), 1992 CanLII 31 (SCC), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6 (“M v. M.”), at pp. 62-63. They have a wide discretion in the performance of their duties as parents, but this does not extend to willfully inflicting personal injuries beyond the limits of reasonable parental discipline. Physical abuse of a child is a breach of the parent’s fiduciary obligation to protect and care for their children: M. v. M., at p. 67.
Ana and Ilinca allege that Liviu physically, verbally and emotionally abused them, and that this constituted a breach of his fiduciary duty to them as a father. To succeed in this cause of action, they must prove that he committed the acts alleged and these acts did not fall within the range of reasonable parental discipline.
Negligence
A person is negligent if they owe a duty of care to another person, they act or fail to act in accordance with that duty, and the other person suffers harm as a result: Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 543, at para. 13.
Ana and Ilinca allege that Liviu breached his duty of care towards them, as a parent, through acts of verbal, physical and emotional abuse, and that this caused them both physical injuries and psychological harm. To succeed in this cause of action, they must again prove the acts they allege, that these acts breached Liviu’s duty of care toward them, and that the acts caused them injuries that may and should be compensated through an award of damages.
Intentional infliction of mental distress
The tort of the intentional infliction of mental distress arises when a defendant engages in flagrant and outrageous conduct calculated to produce harm, which results in a visible and provable injury such as a recognized psychiatric illness McIlvenna v. 1887401 Ontario Ltd., 2015 ONCA 830, 344 O.A.C. 5, at paras. 29-30.
Ana and Ilinca allege that Liviu terrorized them and isolated them from their extended family and their peers and that, as a result, they suffer from depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). If they can prove that this conduct occurred, that it was intentional, and that it caused them to have a recognized psychiatric illness, then they will have made out a claim for intentional infliction of mental distress.
Wrongful imprisonment
A person wrongfully imprisons another if they deprive them of liberty against their will, either through physical or psychological means: Sankreacha v. Cameron J. and Beach Sales Ltd., 2018 ONSC 7216, 51 C.C.E.L. (4th) 264, at para. 233.
Ana and Ilinca allege that they did not feel safe in the Calin home, yet felt compelled to remain because Liviu isolated them socially and undermined their sense of self-worth. To prove that this amounted to unlawful imprisonment, they would have to show that the acts they alleged occurred and that the situation led them to be deprived of their liberty.”