Ismail v Hammad, 2024 ABKB 482

Ismail v Hammad Employment Law Case

This matter involved an alleged assault. On the day of the assault, the Defendant reached out to the Plaintiff to meet at the Tim Hortons in order for him to serve a restraining order. The Court concluded that neither party was credible but had independent surveillance video to review. The Court noted that provocation is not a defence to the tort of assault and battery, but that it can reduce damages. The court reduced damages by 30% taking into account the history between the parties and resulting minor injuries. Although the Plaintiff sought $100,000 in general damages, he failed to call experts. The Court accepted that the Plaintiff suffered a black eye, which was almost swollen shut, as well as contusions, and awarded general damages of $2,500.

The Plaintiff also sought $91,000 in lost income but failed to provide tax evidence or other evidence concerning his wages. Instead, the Plaintiff put into evidence doctor’s notes, but the doctor was not tendered as a witness. Although a contractor agreement was put into evidence, but it simply outlined a 12-month terms with no guarantee of hours. As a result, the loss of income claim was dismissed:

[85] The Court has no way of determining what income the Plaintiff earned prior to the Incident and what, if any, income the Plaintiff lost because of the Incident. There is also no medical information supporting that the Plaintiff was unable to work or for what period.