COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Catford v. Catford, 2013 ONCA 57

DATE: 20130130

DOCKET: C55868

Doherty, Laskin and Blair JJ.A.

Roderick Roland Catford Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

Peter Catford, Ellen Catford, the County of Simcoe and Jamie Moran Defendants (Respondents)

Roderick Catford, appearing in person Timothy Flannery, for the plaintiff (appellant) Kara E. Hamilton and D. Lex Arbesman, for the defendants (respondents), Peter Catford and Ellen Catford Peter Krysiak, for the defendants (respondents), County of Simcoe and Jamie Moran

Heard and released orally: January 15, 2013

On appeal from the order of Justice S. Healey of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 13, 2012.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant argues that the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment in favour of the Catford defendants on the intentional infliction of mental suffering claim. The motion judge concluded, having reviewed the extensive material before her on the summary judgment motion, that the appellant had failed to demonstrate a genuine triable issue on the question of whether the appellant had suffered a “visible illness” as a result of the defendant’s conduct. There is no question but that this is an essential element of the claim advanced by the appellant.

[2] In argument before us, the appellant referred to a comment he made in an email sent to his brother, the defendant, about his mental health and a comment made by his then girlfriend about an increase in the appellant’s medication. In our view, neither of these comments suffices to establish a genuine issue for trial on the question of whether the appellant suffered a “visible injury”. As the trial judge correctly observed:

The appellant has not given evidence that he ever sought medical care or treatment arising out of the allegation made against these defendants in his claim.

[3] The motion judge properly dismissed this claim and we would dismiss the appeal as against the Catford defendants.

[4] During submissions as to the costs of the appeal, the court was advised that it had failed to consider the appellant’s appeal from the costs order made in favour of the Catford defendants on the motion. We see no grounds upon which to interfere with that order.

“Doherty J.A.”

“John I. Laskin J.A.”

“R. A. Blair J.A.”