Law360 Canada (August 8, 2024, 3:12 PM EDT) -- Appeal by appellant from motion judge’s summary judgment dismissing his claims for spoliation and intentional infliction of mental suffering and directing that defamation and breach of contract issues be decided by way of a minitrial. The appellant argued that the motion judge misapplied the test for summary judgment and failed to explain why he preferred the respondent’s evidence over the appellant’s evidence. The appellant brought an action against the respondent, Rogers Communication Canada Inc. (“Rogers”), for damages allegedly arising from its failure to provide him with Internet service and its subsequent collection attempts. After the parties exchanged affidavits of documents and conducted discoveries, Rogers brought a motion for summary judgment. The motion judge dismissed the appellant’s claims for spoliation and intentional infliction of mental suffering because he was satisfied that these claims did not raise genuine issues for trial. The motion judge also found that he could not decide the claim for defamation without viva voce evidence and that he required further submissions on the claim for breach of contract. The motion judge directed that these issues be decided by way of a minitrial. Rather than completing the summary judgment proceedings and participating in the minitrial, the appellant commenced an appeal to the appellate court....