In a breach of confidence claim, a plaintiff must allege
that confidential information was imparted in circumstances
“importing an obligation of confidence”.41 In her statement of
claim, Jane does not provide any explanation of how N.M. came
into the possession of the sexually explicit video. She simply
alleges N.M. uploaded the video to a pornographic website without her knowledge or consent. This is sufficient for the purpose of
an action for public disclosure of private information, but not for
an action for breach of confidence.
 In an action for intentional infliction of mental distress,
a plaintiff must allege that the defendant’s conduct resulted in
a visible and provable injury.42 No such injury is mentioned in
Jane’s statement of claim.
 I accordingly cannot find N.M. liable for these additional
causes of action.
(5) What are Jane’s damages?
 Jane seeks $120,000 in total damages. She seeks $20,000 in
general damages jointly and severally from N.M. and the M.s for
N.M.s’ repeated assault and battery. She seeks $50,000 in general
damages, $25,000 in aggravated damages and $25,000 in punitive
damages from N.M. for the posting of the video on the Internet.
Jane’s damages for assault and battery
 Jane’s affidavit paints a vivid description of an abusive
relationship between September 2013 and March 2014. She
describes how N.M. frequently choked her, dragged her up and
down stairs, threw her around and covered her mouth with such
force that it left bruises. When she was seven months pregnant, he
dragged her down a flight of stairs as she vomited, threatened her
with knife and rope, then finally pushed her physically out of the
house. In March 2014, he attacked her after she tried to leave his
parents’ house, wrestling her to the snow-covered ground, remov-
ing her shoes, forcing her into his car, smashing her head against
the car door and dragging her, bleeding, out of the car by her feet
and then forcing her through a garage and back into the house.
 These physical attacks were accompanied by verbal
abuse. N.M. would fly into unprovoked rages. He called Jane
41 Grant v. Winnipeg Regional Health Authority,  M.J. No. 116, 2015
MBCA 44, at paras. 118-119.
42 Prinzo v. Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care (2002), 60 O.R. (3d) 474, 
O.J. No. 2712 (C.A.).