Singh v. Raftery, 2007 ONCA 358

Court File and Parties

Citation: Singh v. Raftery, 2007 ONCA 358 Date: 2007-05-15 Docket: C46284

Court of Appeal for Ontario Before: Borins and MacFarland JJ.A. and Chapnik J. (ad hoc)

Between: Ram Charan Singh (Plaintiff/Appellant) and John Raftery (Respondent/Defendant)

Counsel: Ram C. Singh, appellant appearing in-person John Zarudny and Troy Harrison, for the respondent

Heard and Released Orally: May 9, 2007 On appeal from: The judgment of Justice Herman J. W. Siegel of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 31, 2006.

Endorsement

[1]

Background

Mr. Singh appeals from the summary judgment granted by Siegel J. dismissing his claim against John Raftery, an assistant crown attorney. Mr. Singh sued Mr. Raftery for damages from malicious prosecution in respect to his trial on charges of assault, disobeying a court order and criminal harassment.

2In Nelles v. Ontario, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170 at para. 42, the Supreme Court of Canada stipulated the following four elements of the tort of malicious prosecution:

1. the proceedings must have been initiated by the defendant;
2. the proceedings must have been terminated in favour of the plaintiff;
3. the absence of reasonable and probable grounds for the prosecution; and
4. malice, or primary purpose other than that of carrying the law into effect.

3The crown having conceded that the first two elements had been met, the motion judge dealt only with the third and fourth elements of the tort. Having found that there was no genuine issue for trial in respect to these elements the motion judge dismissed the appellant’s claim.

[4]

Analysis

The appellant has provided no reasons that would enable us to find that the motion judge made any palpable or overriding error in respect to his findings, or that he made any error in law. The decision of the motion judge is fully supported by the record.

5The appellant was self‑represented. Unfortunately, he did not understand the role of this court, as an error correcting court. He was informed of the court’s role, and advised that it was not the role of the court to rehear the motion. The appellant’s submissions did not address any purported errors made by the motion judge.

[6]

Disposition

Accordingly, we would dismiss the appeal with costs. We would award costs in the amount of $6,500, inclusive of disbursements and GST.