Morris v Karunaratne

The matter of Morris v Karunaratne arose from claims by the plaintiff, a former wife, against her former husband and his parents. She alleged deceit inducing the marriage, as well as various episodes of assault and battery during the marriage. The court had to determine whether the tort of deceit was available between parties to a marriage, the circumstances of the alleged deceit, and the occurrences of assault and battery, as well as whether the statute of limitations was suspended by reason of the plaintiff’s disability due to mental impairment. The plaintiff also sought damages for loss of earning capacity.

The court considered whether the tort of deceit could be applied between spouses, focusing on whether the plaintiff relied on the deceit to enter into the marriage. It also examined the evidence regarding the alleged assaults and batteries, including whether the plaintiff was the victim of intentional harmful conduct or apprehension of imminent harmful conduct. The court further explored whether the statute of limitations was suspended due to the plaintiff’s mental impairment, and if so, whether the claims were brought within the extended period. Finally, the court assessed the causation and loss of earning capacity claims.

The court found that the tort of deceit was not available to ground liability between spouses, as the reliance element was not met. The court determined that there were no instances of assault and battery during the marriage. Regarding the statute of limitations, the court held that it was not suspended by reason of the plaintiff’s mental impairment, and therefore the claims were time-barred. The court awarded damages to the plaintiff against the former husband, and dismissed the claims against the parents.

The final orders of the court were: judgment for the plaintiff against the former husband for $197,500.00; judgment for the parents against the plaintiff; the former husband to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the ordinary basis; the plaintiff to pay the parents’ costs on the ordinary basis; and liberty to apply in respect of the costs orders.