An Ontario Superior Court justice has awarded $100,000 in damages to a woman who endured three decades of severe abuse from her former husband1. In a detailed decision, the court took a “practical and principled approach” to grant the award despite a significant error in how the legal claim was originally filed. In a rare move that sanctioned the wife’s own lawyer, the judge then refused to award any legal costs, citing uncareful work and an improperly prepared bill of costs.
The case involved Sangeeta and Sanjay Sethi, who separated in September 2023 after a 30 year marriage. During an uncontested trial, in which Sanjay Sethi did not participate, Justice McGee heard harrowing evidence of his conduct. Sangeeta Sethi described her former husband as a controlling and manipulative man whose behaviour was marked by violent outbursts, alcohol abuse, and substance abuse. The court heard that both Sangeeta and the couple’s two now adult sons lived under a constant cloud of fear and instability that Sanjay used to control the family.
The abuse was not limited to his wife and children. The family lived with Sanjay’s parents, and after his father’s death in 1996, his mother, Usha, became a frequent target of his anger. The court accepted evidence that Sanjay beat his own mother and stole money from her. Sangeeta testified that she did her best to protect her mother in law and sons while also working full time to support the household. One of the couple’s adult sons, now a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, provided candid and brave testimony. He spoke of his father’s unprovoked rages and mercurial manner, stating he had called the police at least 15 times between 2005 and 2025. He described how his father would instantly change his demeanour and act normally when authorities arrived, only to resume his controlling and violent behaviour once they had left.
The family’s financial situation was equally fraught due to Sanjay’s irresponsibility. The family home in Brampton, originally purchased by his parents, fell into significant mortgage and tax arrears because Sanjay failed to contribute to its costs. He took equity from the property for his own purposes and lost money in failed business ventures. In 2014, the home had to be refinanced. As Sanjay and his mother lacked sufficient income to qualify, Sangeeta, who was the only reliable earner, stepped in. She replaced Sanjay on the title, becoming a joint owner with her mother in law, Usha.
The situation deteriorated further after Usha’s death in January 2023. By law, as the surviving joint tenant, ownership of the home passed directly to Sangeeta. By this time, however, the family’s finances were past the point of no return. The bank had already begun power of sale proceedings to seize the home. Sangeeta and her sons moved into a friend’s basement apartment on September 1, 2023, the date of separation. Sanjay refused to leave the home or deal with the foreclosure, forcing Sangeeta to take legal action. She obtained a court order in October 2023 granting her exclusive possession of the home so she could manage its sale. When Sanjay ignored the order, he was forcibly removed by a bailiff in November 2023 and was subsequently incarcerated.
A parallel legal dispute arose concerning Usha’s estate. Although the house legally belonged to Sangeeta and was not part of the estate, Usha’s granddaughter, the estate executor, registered a lien against the property’s title just before its sale in April 2024. This action prevented Sangeeta from receiving the sale proceeds directly. The matter was resolved through a settlement in December 2024, in which Sangeeta agreed to take 45 percent of the net proceeds, with the remaining 55 percent going to the estate. A key provision of this settlement was that Sanjay’s share of the estate money, approximately $112,000, would be held in trust. This money was specifically designated to be available to satisfy any judgment Sangeeta might obtain against him in her family law application.
It was within this family law application that the central legal issue arose. Sangeeta sought a divorce and $100,000 in damages for the “intentional infliction of mental, emotional and physical abuse by the Respondent.” As Justice McGee noted, this is not a recognized tort in Canadian law. Sangeeta’s counsel did not provide a proper legal basis for the claim as it was written, which appeared to conflate several distinct torts such as assault, battery, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. At the outset of the trial, Sangeeta’s lawyer also withdrew a claim for property equalization, leaving only the divorce and the damages claim for the court to decide.
Faced with an improperly pleaded but factually compelling claim, Justice McGee grappled with whether an award could be made. The judge determined that a “practical and principled approach” was necessary to achieve a just result, consistent with the objectives of the Family Law Rules. The decision noted that while proper pleadings are fundamental to fairness in litigation, courts can forgive procedural defects when a responding party is clearly on notice of the case against them and would suffer no prejudice. In this case, Sanjay had been served with the application and all subsequent materials, including a detailed affidavit outlining the abuse. He was fully aware of the allegations, the amount of damages being sought, and the potential consequences, yet he chose not to respond.
Justice McGee decided to analyze the evidence through the framework of the recognized tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. This tort has three required elements: the defendant’s conduct was flagrant and outrageous; the conduct was calculated to harm; and the conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer a visible and provable illness. The judge found the evidence presented by Sangeeta and her son was “credible and compelling” and easily satisfied all three elements. The decades of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, combined with the financial ruin and constant fear, constituted flagrant and outrageous conduct calculated to harm Sangeeta, resulting in her long standing anxiety and distress.
Based on this finding, Justice McGee awarded Sangeeta the full $100,000 in general damages she had requested. The award was meant to compensate her for the intangible impacts of Sanjay’s abuse, including her constant anxiety, her helplessness to protect her family, her financial distress, the emotional harm from sexual assaults, and her overall loss of enjoyment of life. The judgment ordered the sum to be paid immediately from the inheritance funds being held in trust for Sanjay.
However, in the final part of the decision, the court delivered a sharp rebuke to Sangeeta’s lawyer. Her counsel had submitted a bill of costs for over $44,000, seeking full recovery of legal fees. Justice McGee found the bill was improperly prepared, as it included costs from the separate estate and civil proceedings, which is not permitted. It also contradicted the estate settlement, in which the parties had agreed to bear their own costs. The judge expressed “no confidence” in the bill’s accuracy and sanctioned the lawyer for falling short of professional standards. Noting the uncareful pleading and the failure to provide the court with adequate legal authorities to support the damages claim, the judge stated, “Courts promote what they permit. To permit costs in this case would be to promote uncareful pleadings, an assumed entitlement to substantial damages without provision of any legal precedent and an inflated Bill of Costs.” Consequently, no costs were awarded.
Read about other family law cases here.
