The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claims against the respondents arising from a customer service dispute.
The motion judge found that even if the facts were as the appellant alleged, the claims lacked merit because the respondents did not cause his detention, did not threaten or touch him, and had backed away from the confrontation.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings, rejected a new claim under the Occupiers' Liability Act, and confirmed that the motion judge correctly applied the summary judgment test.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
