Court File and Parties

Citation: Nemmour v. Dixon Hall, 2017 ONSC 6843 Divisional Court File No.: 134/16 Date: 2017-11-16 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario Divisional Court

Re: Mohamed Nemmour, Appellant And: Dixon Hall, Toronto and Harvey Stein, Respondents

Before: Swinton, Rady and Favreau JJ.

Counsel: Mohamed Nemmour, self-represented James C. Dakin and Daria Risteska, for the Respondents

Heard at Toronto: November 15, 2017

Endorsement

[1] Mr. Nemmour, the appellant, seeks to overturn the order of Pollak J. dated February 18, 2016 in which she dismissed his application following a summary trial. She found that there was no evidentiary foundation supporting his claims for damages and other relief against the respondents, a non-profit agency operating a housing shelter and its manager.

[2] The appellant claimed violations of ss. 2, 12 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He also claimed that the respondents were negligent and acted in violation of Toronto Shelter Standards. Assuming, without deciding, that the Charter applies to the respondents, we see no error on the part of the trial judge in finding that the Charter was not violated and in rejecting the appellant’s other claims.

[3] The appellant seeks to re-argue his case, taking issue with the trial judge’s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to show damages supporting a claim in negligence, breach of the Charter, and breach of the Toronto Shelter Standards such as to give rise to a cause of action. An appellate court will not interfere with the trial judge’s findings of fact absent a palpable and overriding error. The appellant has not demonstrated any palpable and overriding errors of fact by the trial judge. She considered and weighed the evidence of both parties, and she preferred the evidence of the respondents, as she was entitled to do.

[4] We see no unfairness in the way the trial was conducted, including the questions about another proceeding and about the appellant’s shelter options.

[5] Accordingly, there is no basis for appellate intervention. The appeal is dismissed. The respondents do not seek costs.

Swinton J.

Rady J.

Favreau J.

Date: November 16, 2017