Aaron Omri Crangle

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his action against his father for the repayment of his student loans.

The appellant argued his father was liable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, claiming his father promised to repay the loans if he studied engineering.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions that the appellant failed to prove the content of the representation, detrimental reliance, or damages.

Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review with costs, the respondent filed a bill of costs for assessment.

The applicant objected to the bill for lacking a supporting affidavit and claiming hours instead of units.

The Assessment Officer found the absence of an affidavit immaterial as only assessable services were claimed, and converted the hours to Tariff B units.

The respondent's bill of costs was assessed and allowed at $2,560.00, with a claim for HST denied due to lack of evidence.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his 77-page statement of claim as an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01, alleging malicious prosecution against his ex-partner and others after criminal harassment charges were withdrawn via a peace bond.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's discretionary decision, finding no misdirection or clear error, and affirmed that the claim and the appellant's communications constituted an abuse of process.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $10,576 in damages and $10,500 in costs.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by providing oral rather than written reasons, making factual errors, demonstrating bias, and awarding costs exceeding the statutory limit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the substantive grounds of appeal, finding that transcribed oral reasons are sufficient and the factual errors were immaterial.

However, the court allowed the appeal on costs, finding the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons for exceeding the 15% limit under section 29 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The costs award was reduced to $7,420.

The respondent filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to set aside a previous Interim Decision that deemed it to have accepted all allegations in the human rights application due to a failure to respond.

The respondent explained that it assumed its accountant had filed the response.

Given the lack of prejudice to the applicant and the significant consequences for the respondent, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to set aside the previous decision and permitted the respondent to file a response.

The applicants brought a motion within an application seeking an order that the respondent pay $3.0 million to their jointly owned corporation to cover outstanding tax liabilities and accounting fees, and for authorization to retain a new accounting firm.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to convert the application to an action and transfer the proceeding to Toronto.

The court declined to order the $3.0 million payment, finding no immediate urgency, but ordered both parties to pay $17,000 each to the original accounting firm to complete the tax returns.

The applicant was granted sole authority to instruct the accountants and deal with corporate shares to pay tax liabilities.

The cross-motion to transfer venue was dismissed, and the request to convert to an action was deferred.

During an urgent conference, the respondent sought an adjournment of an upcoming motion and argued that the application should be converted into an action requiring pleadings and discoveries.

The court declined to adjourn the motion, noting the respondent had previously agreed to the motion date and had failed to comply with earlier court-ordered timelines or deliver responding materials.

The court held that any request to convert the proceeding into an action could be brought by way of a motion for directions but should not delay the scheduled motion hearing.

The court also confirmed that the applicants were entitled to examine a non-party under oath in relation to the pending motion.

The appellant appealed orders finding him in contempt of court for failing to make financial disclosure in a family law proceeding, awarding full indemnity costs against him, and dismissing his cross-motion for contempt against the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the contempt finding, noting the appellant deliberately and wilfully disobeyed a clear court order to produce corporate financial information.

The court refused leave to appeal the costs award, finding no error in principle.

The court also dismissed the appeal regarding the cross-motion for contempt, finding the respondent's failure to produce certain bank documents was a mistake rather than intentional disobedience.

The moving party sought an order extending the time to file a Notice of Appeal from a Small Claims Court decision.

The moving party had previously brought an unsuccessful motion for a new trial in the Small Claims Court.

The Divisional Court applied the test from Frey v. MacDonald and found the moving party had not satisfied the requirements.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed with costs fixed at $3,500.