The case Danovic v. Wagner addresses the claim of Emina Danovic, an unemployed senior woman, against a university professor Graham Wagner for the failure of their relationships that caused her mental health issues and emotional sufferings. From a personal perspective, what stands out about this case is its nature. In other words, an emotionally unstable woman is seeking revenge when her needs were not satisfied, however, she was clearly informed by the defendant that they would not be satisfied, and she gave her agreement. Thus, it goes without saying that the most unpleasant aspect of this case is the plaintiff’s behavior, actions, and the claim itself. It does not identify the cause of action and does not contain the material facts’ concise statement and prayer for relief (“Danovic v. Wagner,” 2014). Instead, the plaintiff simply wanted to revenge the defendants for misconduct he had not committed motivated by emotions or desire to receive no-material benefits from the defendant related to his professional activities.
Although the investigation and hearing of this case were prescribed by Canadian law, it still remains surprising for me why it was addressed by the court having no economic ground. From the plaintiff’s letter, it was obvious that the plaintiff did not understand the purpose of the claim and commenced it without respect to the court, guided by emotions that, at the same time, did not have a reasonable basis. In addition, the absence of the defendant’s claim surprised me as well, as he has more evidence that his career, personal life, and mental health were affected by the plaintiff’s actions. At the same time, what was new to me is the accuracy of investigation in relation to particular aspects. For instance, the fact that the plaintiff was not pregnant was supported not only by a negative test but with evidence provided by gynecologists in two different European countries, however, even the confirmed fact of pregnancy was not directly related to the claim as the plaintiff did not reject his financial responsibilities. At the same time, I would like to learn more about “frivolous” and “vexatious” claims as I did not face these definitions prior to reading this case.