suing for "intentional infliction of emotional distress"? | GTAMotorcycle.com

suing for "intentional infliction of emotional distress"?

anyone can sue for anything
if you can prove damages

did someone refuse to cut your hair?
 
Intentional infliction of emotional distress like threatening to sue somebody? <- See how slippery that slope is!
I was taught to never threaten somebody with the law because that's considered extortion, just sue them or get over it.
 
OP, you go online to the Ont website for superior courts, then navigate to small claims court, all the paperwork and plain language directions are provided there. What you will NOT find is legal advice. to get that you can google what your hoping to sue for and generally there are "helpful tips" type pages put up by paralegals and law firms, you may find, some direction there.

Having been to small claims before, (NOT as a defendant, but a plaintiff). As stated above you NEED to show ACTUAL damages, (IE you own a business, and due to someone else's actions, including written documents etc, that your business has suffered), IE last year sales were $125,000 then someone wrote something derogatory, and this year, (with all else being equal, {IE you have changed locations or a contract expired, etc}), this years sales are $55,000, then you can sue for $50,000( IF you went to superior court IF small claims the limit is $25,000). If you were fired as a result of someone elses actions words then you can recover lost income, BUT it is incumbent upon you to seek IMMEDIATE employment to mitigate your damages.

But if your "feelings" were hurt then there is NO recourse in court for you. Put on your big girl panties and move on..lmao
 
http://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/43141

Emotional Upset Not Enough for Award of General Damages: ONCA

and

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2017/2017scc28/2017scc28.html

To establish mental injury, claimants must show that the disturbance is serious and prolonged and rises above the ordinary annoyances, anxieties and fears that come with living in civil society. Expert evidence can assist in determining whether or not a mental injury has been shown, but where a psychiatric diagnosis is unavailable, it remains open to a trier of fact to find on other evidence adduced by the claimant that he or she has proven on a balance of probabilities the occurrence of mental injury. It also remains open to the defendant, in rebutting a claim, to call expert evidence establishing that the accident cannot have caused any mental injury, or at least any mental injury known to psychiatry.
 
Last edited:
The op wisely doesn't state facts in the event this goes to court but if we need a case to discuss we can use one of mine. Possibly there are commonalities.

A good friend is the victim of a covert character assassination by a former friend of his. Facts are being distorted and a lot is being done by innuendo. The bad guy has a hate on for my friend due to a desire to get revenge from a verbal slight and a lack of knowledge of the truth.

If you knew the whole story you would understand the stress my friend was under and just write the slight off to "He was having a bad day." The antagonist knows how to stack the deck and basically back stabs.

The way I see it my friend would have to hire a lawyer and accredited experts to prove harm. Lawyers and psychiatrists don't work cheap and one would have to subpoena friends and drag them into it. No one is perfect and everyone's dirty laundry gets aired, witnesses included.

Canadian settlements, if successful, are not the multi-million dollar bonanzas we hear of in the USA. If successful, the settlements tend to punish the defendant but don't financially reward the plaintiff after the bills are paid.

My friend has had some good things come his way and has friends that know the truth so he's frustrated but OK.

However if he decided to go up against his "Enemy" how would it play out?

I know someone else who ended up with a $40K legal bill after a substantial discount.

If the OP situation includes racism, sexism etc it might be easier as they are hot topics and special interest groups may help.

Thoughts???
 
Well if a case did involve Racism, or sexism, then the better route for justice, would be to go the human rights arena. That is what the are designed to deal with.

Glad your friend came out of it ok.

now to address some of the other points. If going to small claims it is acceptable to represent yourself, but you "can" use a lawyer. If exceeding the small claims limit and going to Superior Court, it is inadvisable to represent yourself. Small claims judges recognize it is lay people and without directly involving themselves in the case they do tend to "assist" both parties, in that after giving your evidence the judge may ask what most would term "leading questions" to solicit all of, and proper evidence to move the case along.

Superior Court judges would never do such a thing. Also in terms of legal fees If one loses in either court they "can" especially if they ask the court to order it, have the losing party pay legal fees of both sides so you could easily be in to the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.

nobbie48 said:
The op wisely doesn't state facts in the event this goes to court but if we need a case to discuss we can use one of mine. Possibly there are commonalities.

A good friend is the victim of a covert character assassination by a former friend of his. Facts are being distorted and a lot is being done by innuendo. The bad guy has a hate on for my friend due to a desire to get revenge from a verbal slight and a lack of knowledge of the truth.

If you knew the whole story you would understand the stress my friend was under and just write the slight off to "He was having a bad day." The antagonist knows how to stack the deck and basically back stabs.

The way I see it my friend would have to hire a lawyer and accredited experts to prove harm. Lawyers and psychiatrists don't work cheap and one would have to subpoena friends and drag them into it. No one is perfect and everyone's dirty laundry gets aired, witnesses included.

Canadian settlements, if successful, are not the multi-million dollar bonanzas we hear of in the USA. If successful, the settlements tend to punish the defendant but don't financially reward the plaintiff after the bills are paid.

My friend has had some good things come his way and has friends that know the truth so he's frustrated but OK.

However if he decided to go up against his "Enemy" how would it play out?

I know someone else who ended up with a $40K legal bill after a substantial discount.

If the OP situation includes racism, sexism etc it might be easier as they are hot topics and special interest groups may help.

Thoughts???
Click to expand...
 
hedo2002 said:
Well if a case did involve Racism, or sexism, then the better route for justice, would be to go the human rights arena. That is what the are designed to deal with.

Glad your friend came out of it ok.

now to address some of the other points. If going to small claims it is acceptable to represent yourself, but you "can" use a lawyer. If exceeding the small claims limit and going to Superior Court, it is inadvisable to represent yourself. Small claims judges recognize it is lay people and without directly involving themselves in the case they do tend to "assist" both parties, in that after giving your evidence the judge may ask what most would term "leading questions" to solicit all of, and proper evidence to move the case along.

Superior Court judges would never do such a thing. Also in terms of legal fees If one loses in either court they "can" especially if they ask the court to order it, have the losing party pay legal fees of both sides so you could easily be in to the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Click to expand...

It's been a long time since I was involved with small claims and limits were much smaller. IIRC back then they didn't deal with "suffering" type claims and legal fee compensation was a few hundred dollars maximum.

My experience with small claims wasn't good. The person presiding over the preliminary case acted like he was on MJ. Judges can be biased as well. There are no guarantees except a bill from your lawyer.

It is sad that a lot of people get away with bullying, slander and various "isms" because the system is often hostile to the victim.
 
you mention slander @nobbie48
that and libel - written slander - have become much harder to litigate
I guess we can blame the internet for this
plaintiff has to prove that the information is expected to be truthful
and not interpreted as satire or comedy
so in essence anyone can say or write anything they like
then hide behind the, oh I was just joking excuse
see Bill Maher, although I do find him funny
he has made a career taking shots at people, then turtling behind the satire tag
 
JavaFan said:
you mention slander @nobbie48
that and libel - written slander - have become much harder to litigate
I guess we can blame the internet for this
plaintiff has to prove that the information is expected to be truthful
and not interpreted as satire or comedy
so in essence anyone can say or write anything they like
then hide behind the, oh I was just joking excuse
see Bill Maher, although I do find him funny
he has made a career taking shots at people, then turtling behind the satire tag
Click to expand...

Innuendo is hard to nail down as well. Say "There goes JavaFan again." while rolling your eyes and people assume a negative. In reality nothing negative was said and how much do you have to roll your eyes for it to be an issue?
 
Yes, the limits on Small claims jumped from $5,000 to $25,000. As for legal fees, as long as the other side can show them to be "reasonable" the court will award them. Law firms now charge MUCH higher fees then they did in the 80's when the limits were increased. Of course the negative is unlike Personal Injury firms, lawyers in small claims want a retainer up front. Depending on how complex the case is I have seen retainers as higher as $10,000, which makes one wonder why hire a lawyer especially if your suing for anything other than a slam dunk, (You advised the property owner on 3 occasions over a 3 month period of a defect on their property, then while there you are there, properly, and get injured). Pay a lawyer $10,000 to get an award of $15,000.

The other side, is you get a judgement and the other party simply refuses to pay. it can be VERY cumbersome and at times expensive, to TRY to collect, especially if the other party doesn't own a property etc.

nobbie48 said:
It's been a long time since I was involved with small claims and limits were much smaller. IIRC back then they didn't deal with "suffering" type claims and legal fee compensation was a few hundred dollars maximum.

My experience with small claims wasn't good. The person presiding over the preliminary case acted like he was on MJ. Judges can be biased as well. There are no guarantees except a bill from your lawyer.

It is sad that a lot of people get away with bullying, slander and various "isms" because the system is often hostile to the victim.
Click to expand...
 
The biggest part of an emotional suit is the subjective nature and realistic expectations of the situation.

A woman working in an office should not expect lewd comments. A stripper should.

What is realistic for the situation?
 
I dont know the correct wording, but I have seen a suit for " loss of enjoyment of sport" where the plaintiff was sueing a volunteer run organization for a handicap rating he felt was unfair and made it hard for him to win. Same guy also threatened another suit when he tried to sell the boat that had a "poor" rating and it was hard to sell as who would want it.

A fair and decent lawyer may say 'hey we have no chance of a win' save your money, but many may say, well lets send the letter and see what happens. And if you try hard enough you can find grounds to sue over anything. Proving it may be a completely different matter. But sometime people just need to be 'heard' , they know the chance of collection is nill but there is sport in spending $300 to have your lawyer send a letter, then they have to spend $300 for a lawyer to read it to see if there is any weight to it. Spend long enough in business and you'll see lots of 'threat' letters. Generally the threatening party doesn't have the resources to go beyond having a letter sent.
If its a real claim, they will get a lawyer to take the torch up on a percentage of settlement deal, then push to have insurance settle before court or the defendant just settle, it causes lots of financial pain for the defendant.
 
You will forgive me but Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress sound more like grounds for divorce than a cause of action in a civil case.
 
Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a cause of action in the US. In Ontario, the equivalent claim is "intentional infliction of mental suffering." The plaintiff has to prove that they suffered visible harm that was caused by someone who intended to cause the harm and acted outrageously in doing so. It's hard to prove.
 
Call a lawyer that specializes in whatever your talking about.
It won't cost you anything to have your question answered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom