. . . . .
Mr. Elmardy seeks $75,000 in general damages in relation to the battery
committed upon him by Constable Pak. The battery consisted of two
punches in the face and some further minor contact that caused little or no
injury. Mr. Elmardy’s cheek was swollen for a few days. His lip cut healed
quickly. His knees were better within a week. General damages are to compensate a plaintiff for the injuries suffered. This includes emotional losses
such as the plaintiff’s claim to have been humiliated and to now distrust
police. Considering tort cases dealing with similar injuries, in my view, an
award of $5,000 for general damages for pain and suffering is appropriate
although it may well be at the high end of the range for such injuries.
 The appellant cited two cases to support his submission
that the trial judge’s general damages award did not fall within
the range for similar types of injuries: Ernst v. Quinonez, 
O.J. No. 3781,  O.T.C. 847 (S.C.J.) and Evans v. Sproule,
 O.J. No. 4518, 2008 CarswellOnt 8753 (S.C.J.). In the
former, the court awarded general damages of $25,000 for police
battery and in the latter the award was $100,000. However, in
both cases the injuries and consequences were far more serious
than the trial judge found existed in this case.
 In contrast, the respondent cited a number of other cases
in which courts (in most cases, provisionally) made damage
awards for similar types of alleged battery by the police in
amounts not exceeding $5,000 (see Wilsdon v. Durham (Regional
Municipality) Police,  O.J. No. 6289, 2011 ONSC 3419
(S.C.J.), Leclair v. Ottawa (City) Police Services Board, 
O.J. No. 1233, 2012 ONSC 1729 (S.C.J.) and Sherman v. Renwick,  O.J. No. 632,  O. T.C. 135 (S.C.J.)).
 Given the findings of the trial judge about the nature and
extent of the appellant’s injuries and the case law, it cannot be
said that the trial judge’s award of general damages for battery
falls outside of the appropriate range for such damages.
 In fixing compensation for the Charter breaches, the trial
judge focused on the general damages that the appellant suffered by virtue of those breaches and found that “vindication and
deterrence are best dealt with by declaratory relief and punitive
damages”. Thus, he awarded $2,000 for the s. 9 breach, which
resulted from a detention lasting approximately 30 minutes;
$1,000 for the s. 8 breach, which resulted from an illegal search
where the applicant did not suffer any destruction of his property; and $1,000 for the s. 10 breaches.
 Vancouver (City) v. Ward,  2 S.C.R. 28,  S.C.J.
No. 27, 2010 SCC 27 is the leading case concerning the awarding