Mr. Abramovitz claims damages arising from Ms. Lee’s
conduct on the basis of the torts of deceit, intrusion upon seclusion,
invasion of privacy and intentional or negligent infliction of mental
suffering. In my view, this case sounds primarily in deceit: Ms. Lee
impersonated Mr. Abramovitz to send a false rejection letter to
Coburn and she impersonated Mr. Gilad to create an e-mail
account in his name and to send a false rejection letter to Mr.
Abramovitz. She effected these steps by deleting the acceptance
letter from Coburn to Mr. Abramovitz with the intention of misleading Mr. Abramovitz. She apparently did these things so that
Mr. Abramovitz would not leave Montreal, and instead would stay
in Montreal and remain in his relationship with her.6
 Mr. Abramovitz seeks general damages including loss of
reputation, loss of educational opportunity and delay in the exercise of his chosen profession. For the reasons that follow I am satisfied that the principal head of damage, in this case, is loss of
educational opportunity and loss of income caused by redirection
of Mr. Abramovitz’s career resulting from Ms. Lee’s wrongful
conduct. I find that there has been some short-term loss of reputation, but conclude that this loss will be substantially addressed
by this judgment, which lays bare the reason why Mr. Abramovitz
did not study with Mr. Gilad, and finds that Mr. Abramovitz was
found by Coburn to be worthy of a full-scholarship offer of admission to Coburn in 2014.
1. Loss of educational opportunity
 I accept and find that Mr. Abramovitz lost a unique and
prestigious educational opportunity, one that would have advanced
his career as a professional clarinetist. It is difficult to quantify
such a loss. Mr. Abramovitz’s life and career have continued. Imagining how his life would have been different if he had studied for
two years under Mr. Gilad, and earned his teacher’s respect and
support, requires more speculation than the law permits. One
hears, particularly in the arts, of the “big breaks” that can launch
a promising artist to a stratospheric career. I cannot speculate as too
high and how quickly Mr. Abramovitz’s career might have soared,
6 See Derry v. Peak (1889), 14 App. Cas. 337,  UKHL 1; Bruno Appliance and Furniture, Inc. v. Hyrniak,  1 S.C.R. 126,  S.C.J. No.
8; Mele v. Thorne, Ernst & Whinney (1997), 32 O.R. (3d) 459,  O.J.
No. 440 (Gen. Div.).