Samar Musallam

The appellant, Gladys Segura, appealed the dismissal of her application to transfer her Small Claims Court action to the Superior Court of Justice and to add the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and Commission for Complaints for Telecom-Television Services (CCTTS) as defendants.

The original Small Claims action involved claims against Rogers Communications Inc. for alleged overcharges, improper service termination, and a phone exchange.

The application judge found that the appellant had not demonstrated that her claim could not be justly and fairly resolved in Small Claims Court, nor had she provided sufficient material facts to support higher damages, equitable relief, or claims against the proposed new defendants.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's decision, affirming the dismissal of the transfer application and the refusal to add new parties.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

The applicant, a federal inmate, brought a habeas corpus application challenging his security reclassification from medium to maximum and his involuntary transfer to Millhaven Institution.

The transfer was triggered by his alleged involvement in a drone drop of contraband.

The court found the Correctional Service of Canada's decisions to be unreasonable due to a lack of connection between the applicant's behaviour and the drone drop, and procedurally unfair due to deficient information sharing and insufficient reasons.

The application was granted and the Warden's decisions were quashed.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an application to transfer her Small Claims Court action against Rogers Communications Inc. to the Superior Court of Justice and to add the CRTC and CCTTS as defendants.

The plaintiff originally sought $1,858.83 for alleged overcharges and issues related to cellphone repairs and account termination.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a transfer was necessary for a just and fair resolution of her claim, as her monetary claim was well within the Small Claims Court's jurisdiction and she failed to provide a proposed statement of claim outlining any equitable relief or viable causes of action against the proposed defendants.