Case information

Charter of rights — Fundamental justice — Civil procedure — Appeals — Torts — Intentional torts — Confrontation between parties — Applicant suing respondent for assault, negligent misrepresentation and intentional infliction of emotional distress — Claims dismissed in Small Claims Court — First-level appeal dismissed — Application for extension of time to apply for leave to appeal dismissed — Whether there was miscarriage of justice in trial judge’s misapprehension of evidence — Whether outcome of proceedings disenfranchised applicant’s right to fair trial protected under Charter — Whether legal system unfairly prohibits questioning of trial judge’s conclusions — Whether trial judge violated applicant’s Charter rights through abuse of discretion — Whether applicant entitled to remedy.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant agreed to rent an adjoining property to the respondent’s daughter, on the respondent’s recommendation. After the tenancy ended badly, the respondent attended the property to retrieve his daughter’s belongings, and a confrontation with the applicant ensued. Nearly two years after the confrontation, the applicant filed a statement of claim against the respondent, seeking damages for assault, negligent misrepresentation, and infliction of emotional distress. The Small Claims Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. The applicant appealed.

A chambers judge at the Court of King’s Bench dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the Small Claims Court decision. The applicant then brought three applications before a single judge of the Court of Appeal: an application for an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal, an application for leave to appeal, and an application for a stay of the Court of King’s Bench decision, pending appeal. All three applications were dismissed by the Court of Appeal.