Case information

Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Right to equality — Discrimination based on colour, sexual orientation and disability — Procedural fairness and natural justice — Reasonable apprehension of bias — Applicant suing respondents following contractual dispute — Respondents counter-claiming for defamation — Small Claims Court judge dismissing applicant’s claim — Appeal judge at Divisional Court dismissing applicant’s appeal — Court of Appeal dismissing applicant’s motion seeking leave to appeal — Whether the applicant’s rights under ss. 2(b) and 15 of the Charter were violated — Whether “white privilege” tilted the scale of justice — Whether the trial court was complicit in allowing the respondents to commit fraud — Whether the applicant’s procedural fairness or natural justice rights were compromised — Whether consistency is needed pertaining to the judicial assistance given to self-represented litigants living with disabilities — Whether courts should interpret and apply rules in a manner that ensures a procedurally fair and impartial hearing for vulnerable self-represented litigants — Whether the appeal judge erred by failing to acknowledge the applicant’s status as a self-represented litigant with a disability — Whether it was appropriate for the appeal judge to deliberately falsify relevant facts and omit relevant evidence in order to manufacture guilt — Whether the appeal judge erred by not applying the correctness standard of review for legal and procedural errors — Whether clarity is needed regarding defamation law — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 2, 15.

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.

Following a contractual dispute between the parties concerning roofing repair work performed by the respondents on the applicant’s house, the applicant sued the respondents in Small Claims Court; the respondents counter-claimed for defamation, as a result of the applicant’s negative reviews about the respondents posted online.

A deputy judge at the Small Claims Court found in favour of the respondents and dismissed the applicant’s claim; this result was then upheld on appeal before the Divisional Court. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s motion seeking leave to appeal the Divisional Court decision.