Ontario Superior Court: Murad v. Paul Default Judgment Awards $100K+ for Road Rage

• The Ontario Superior Court awarded $102,965.8 in a default judgment for an assault and battery case stemming from a road rage incident.
• The defendant was identified via a license plate search after shattering the plaintiff's car window with a pipe wrench and striking the plaintiff.
• Justice Dow proceeded with the default judgment despite concerns about the lack of personal service, accepting the defendant's failure to defend as an admission of guilt.
• General damages were set at $60,000 due to insufficient detail in medical evidence, while $15,000 was awarded for punitive damages.
• A claim for lost income was rejected due to inadequate documentation, including details on collateral benefits and an unexplained drop in reported income.

Justice Dow reasoned that the defendant's failure to defend the action, coupled with the noting in default, constituted an admission of the allegations laid out in the statement of claim, thereby allowing the default judgment to proceed.

The Ontario Superior Court recently awarded a plaintiff over $100,000 in a default judgment stemming from a violent road rage incident. The case, Murad v. Paul, 2026 ONSC 4902, involved an altercation on January 11, 2022, where the defendant exited a stationary vehicle, used a pipe wrench to shatter the driver's door window of the plaintiff's car, and then struck the plaintiff. Following the assault, the plaintiff managed to photograph the defendant's vehicle license plate.

This crucial piece of evidence allowed for the defendant's identification through a January 2023 license plate search. Subsequently, the plaintiff initiated legal proceedings, alleging the intentional torts of assault and battery, and moved for a default judgment. The initial procedural step came on March 21, 2025, when Justice Koehnen directed that the matter proceed as an in-writing default judgment hearing. This directive also included instructions for the service of his endorsement, the motion record, the noting in default, and the proposed form of judgment.

A key procedural hurdle involved the method of service on the defendant. According to an affidavit sworn on April 2 of the previous year, service was effected via regular mail to an address identified through the license plate search, with a copy of the statement of claim left with a woman at that location. However, Justice Grant Dow, who ultimately presided over the default judgment motion, interpreted Justice Koehnen's earlier directions as likely intending personal service. Justice Dow surmised that this preference for personal service was probably aimed at conserving court resources by pre-empting any future motions to set aside the judgment based on the defendant's alleged lack of awareness.

Despite his interpretation regarding personal service, Justice Dow opted not to adjourn or dismiss the plaintiff's motion. He acknowledged that he could have done so, potentially without prejudice, to allow for better evidence of actual service on the defendant. Nevertheless, he accepted the statements provided by the plaintiff's counsel. Justice Dow reasoned that the defendant's failure to defend the action, coupled with the noting in default, constituted an admission of the allegations laid out in the statement of claim, thereby allowing the default judgment to proceed.

In assessing the damages, Justice Dow awarded $60,000 for general damages, placing it at the lower end of the plaintiff's requested range of $60,000 to $90,000. This decision was influenced by the medical evidence, which was deemed to lack sufficient detail and supporting documentation. For instance, a complaint of chronic right ear buzzing and 40 percent hearing loss was supported only by a statement that an 'ENT in Egypt' had examined the plaintiff, without any accompanying medical records or explanation from the assessing professional.

Justice Dow also fixed punitive damages at $15,000, finding the defendant's conduct to be reprehensible and satisfying the criteria established in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18. He noted, however, the absence of any conviction under the Criminal Code, 1985. For special damages, the requested amount of $390.40 was awarded, aligning with the provided treatment records and identified providers. Conversely, the claim for lost income, ranging from $10,000 to $20,000, was rejected due to insufficient detail, particularly regarding employment insurance and other deductible collateral benefits. The court also noted inconsistencies in the plaintiff's reported annual gross income from 2020 to 2022, which dropped from $22,224 to $9,575 and then rose to $12,098, without adequate explanation for the decline. Finally, pre-judgment interest was calculated at $16,862.42 for 2,053 days, from the incident date of January 11, 2022, using a five percent annual rate for non-pecuniary damages for personal injury, bringing the total award to $102,965.8.

This ruling in Murad v. Paul underscores the court's dual approach to default judgments: upholding the plaintiff's right to redress when a defendant fails to engage, while simultaneously maintaining rigorous standards for evidence, particularly concerning damages. Justice Dow's careful consideration of the service issue, despite ultimately proceeding with the default, highlights the judiciary's concern for due process and the potential for judgments to be challenged later.

The award of punitive damages serves as a strong message regarding the reprehensible nature of the defendant's actions, even in the absence of a criminal conviction. However, the court's detailed scrutiny of the plaintiff's medical and income claims demonstrates that even in a default scenario, plaintiffs must present robust and well-supported evidence to substantiate their claimed losses. The rejection of the lost income claim due to insufficient detail, despite the plaintiff's assertion of being an Uber driver who missed 90 days of work, reinforces the necessity of comprehensive documentation for all damage components.

Source: Original reporting via Canadian Lawyer