Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Compliance with the deadline to register the case for trial and hearing under the Code of Civil Procedure was at issue.

• The appellant’s diligence and whether he demonstrated an impossibility to act within the prescribed time were examined.

• The adequacy of information provided to the appellant regarding procedural deadlines was considered.

• The effect of the appellant’s self-representation on his procedural obligations was discussed.

• The standard for appellate intervention in findings of fact, specifically regarding impossibility to act, was applied.

• Court costs were awarded following the dismissal of the appeal.

Facts of the case

Rayed Ayed was employed by ABB Inc. until he was dismissed. His union contested both the written notice and the dismissal through grievances, but both were rejected. Ayed then brought legal proceedings against ABB Inc. and his former supervisor before the Superior Court, claiming $216,443.12 in damages for harm he alleged resulted from statements made in connection with his dismissal and ABB’s refusal to provide a letter of recommendation. He was initially represented by a lawyer but has been self-represented since September 2023.

Procedural history and key developments

On November 18, 2024, ABB Inc. and the supervisor filed a motion to dismiss the proceedings for abuse. On January 9, 2025, the motion was granted with respect to the supervisor but denied as to ABB Inc. In February 2025, Ayed indicated to ABB’s lawyers his intention to proceed with pre-trial examinations. ABB’s lawyers informed him three times that the deadline to register the case for trial and hearing had expired on November 29, 2024, after two extensions, and that he needed to seek relief from default. Ayed did not take any such steps. In April 2025, ABB Inc. filed a request for judgment for deemed discontinuance and to recover court costs. Ayed responded by seeking relief from his failure to register the case within the prescribed time.

On May 1, 2025, Justice Chantal Masse denied Ayed’s request for relief and took note of ABB’s waiver of seeking court costs through registration. The judge concluded that Ayed had not demonstrated diligence or an impossibility to act within the required time.

Appeal and outcome

Ayed appealed this decision. ABB Inc. sought dismissal of the appeal on the grounds that it had no chance of success. The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the trial judge had correctly identified and applied the relevant rule and that Ayed had not shown he was unable to act within the deadline. The Court noted that Ayed had been informed three times by ABB’s lawyers about the need to seek relief and that his lack of representation since September 2023 did not relieve him of his procedural obligations. The Court of Appeal granted ABB Inc.’s motion, dismissed the appeal, and ordered Ayed to pay court costs. The amount of costs was not specified. ABB Inc. was the successful party, with only court costs awarded and no damages.