Phone: (709) 579-4000
Toll Free: (888) 579-3262

I am here because:

Accident and Injury Lawyer Ches Crosbie Meets the Press

Record $17 million injury award upheld


Posted on Jun 17, 2008

Canadian Court Upholds $17 Million Verdict for Injured Child

That’s right – a Canadian court has upheld a verdict worth $17 million awarded by a jury to a child who was two years old when he fell out an apartment window and suffered devastating injuries. This largest ever award was made by an Ontario jury, and in a decision released in spring 2008 the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the award.

Harvinder Sandhu, now 13 years old, was just a toddler when he fell through a broken screen of his aunt and uncle’s fifth floor apartment on Toronto’s Martin Grove Road. The broken screen had been reported more than once to the building’s superintendent.

Harvinder “suffered numerous injuries, including a frontal lobe brain injury so severe that he will never be gainfully employed and will always require supervision,” the appeal court noted. The boy requires constant care.

The Ontario Superior Court jury awarded the plaintiffs $12,936,145.60 in January of 2006. Trial judge Justice Carolyn Horkins awarded and extra $4,182,039.02 in guardianship costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

The apartment owners raised 12 grounds of appeal to the panel of three Justices. For starters, the jury’s award was $1.336 million more than the plaintiff’s counsel had recommended in her jury address. The jury awarded the highest amount of non-pecuniary general damages permitted by the Supreme Court of Canada at $311,000, $100,000 to each of Harvinder’s parents and his brother under Ontario’s Family Law Act, plus damages for loss of future income at the highest level based on a retirement age of 65. The panel of judges dismissed all 12 grounds of appeal.

The appellant apartment owners also complained that the trial judge had wrongly allowed the entry of evidence of repairs.  The appeal court disagreed, stating that the fact that repairs to the screens were made quickly and inexpensively after the accident was relevant to show that the appellants had failed to meet a reasonable standard in keeping the building in good repair or in making reasonable inspections for safety defects.

The appeal judges would not overturn this jury verdict against the weight of the evidence unless it was “so plainly unreasonable and unjust as to satisfy the court that no jury, reviewing the evidence as a whole and acting judicially, could have reached it.” They did not view the outcome of the 2006 trial as unreasonable or unjust.

The lawyer who represented the plaintiffs in the court of appeal said this is the largest personal injury award affirmed at the appellate level in Canada. She also viewed the $100,000 derivative award to Harvinder’s brother, Parminder, “a vindication” because she has long fought for the recognition of the effect of devastating injuries on siblings.

back to top