Civil Litigation - Defendant

The moving parties (defendants) sought to re-open their appeal, which was previously dismissed as abandoned due to their former counsel's failure to appear and communicate.

The court granted the motion, finding it was in the interests of justice as the moving parties were unaware of the hearing date through no fault of their own, and their former counsel was later suspended by the Law Society.

The appeal was not heard on its merits, and the responding party consented to the re-opening.

The appellant, Leonid Pekker, appealed a Superior Court judgment that recognized and enforced a Russian court's judgment against him for an unpaid loan.

The Russian judgment was obtained ex parte after Pekker failed to appear, despite being duly notified.

Pekker's subsequent appeal in Russia, challenging notice, was dismissed, and he did not pursue further appeals.

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding no error in recognizing the foreign judgment.

The Court affirmed that the Russian proceedings met minimum standards of fairness, as Pekker had adequate notice and opportunity to defend and appeal.

The Court also upheld the exclusion of an unsworn expert report on Russian law.

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to find a person involved in the action in contempt.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined that the order appealed from was interlocutory, meaning it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, which properly lies to the Divisional Court with leave.

Consequently, the appeal was transmitted to the Divisional Court.

The moving parties sought reconsideration of a prior decision by the Court of Appeal dismissing their appeal, presenting new evidence.

The court dismissed the motion for reconsideration, affirming that such requests are granted only in very exceptional cases and that the new evidence did not undermine the basis for the original appeal dismissal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party.

The appellant, Ahmad Mohammad (also known as Ahmad Yousef), brought three appeals from Superior Court orders dismissing his actions under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal considered dismissing the appeals and revoking the appellant's fee waivers under the Administration of Justice Act.

The court found the proceedings to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, lacking intelligible grounds or causes of action.

The panel review motions for two appeals (McMaster University and Chaimowitz) were dismissed under r. 2.1.02, and the third appeal (Google) was dismissed under r. 2.1.01 for failure to perfect.

The court also revoked the appellant's fee waivers and prohibited further fee waiver requests without judicial permission.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant, an inmate, appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his action against the Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The original action alleged deliberate power cuts to his cell and sought damages and an order for an extension cord.

The Superior Court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting jurisdictional issues and a lack of cause of action, and ruled against the admissibility of the appellant's affidavit evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no clear error or misdirection by the motion judge, and affirmed that Rule 2.1.01 is intended for summary dismissal of such claims, precluding the need for affidavit evidence.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on a preliminary jurisdictional question raised by the court itself, rather than on the substantive issues.

The court had determined that neither the application judge nor the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to decide whether a proposed payment would constitute an offence under the Criminal Code.

Given these unique circumstances, where the disposition was based on a threshold jurisdictional question posed by the panel and did not determine the underlying substantive issues, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs below and on appeal.

The appellant, Robert Collette, appealed a motion judge's order that, while striking out most claims under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, allowed a claim for harassment and intentional infliction of emotional harm to proceed.

The core issue on appeal was whether a successful s. 137.1 motion requires dismissal of the entire action or permits dismissal of only specific claims.

The Court of Appeal found that, based on the motion judge's finding that the entire action was motivated to silence public interest expression, the entire action should have been dismissed.

The appeal was allowed, and the entire action was dismissed.

The appellant, Timothy Rodger, appealed an order dismissing his action for delay under Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action, a negligence claim against London Hydro Inc., had seen no steps taken for over four years after examinations for discovery.

The motion judge dismissed the action, citing the passage of over five years since commencement, the lack of an affidavit explaining the delay, and the presumption of prejudice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the exercise of discretion to dismiss the action and deny a further adjournment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The respondent, Nordik Windows Inc., brought a motion to quash an appeal by the appellants, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada et al., arguing the underlying order was interlocutory and required leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

Aviva contended the order was final as it determined a limitation period issue.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge's order was interlocutory, as it did not finally determine the limitation period defence, but rather dismissed the motion without a final conclusion on that issue.

The appeal was therefore quashed.

The appellant, Melissa Bell, appealed a summary judgment dismissing her solicitor's negligence claim against the respondent, Corinne Elizabeth Long.

The claim was found to be statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant argued that the claim was not discoverable until later dates and that the limitation period was suspended due to mental incapacity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings, concluding that the claim was discoverable more than two years before it was commenced and that the appellant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish incapacity under the Act, particularly given her active participation in other litigation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicants sought to set aside a motion judge's decision that dismissed their motion to extend time to appeal an earlier order.

The motion judge had found prompt intention but serious prejudice to respondents due to the applicant being judgment-proof with over $1,000,000 in outstanding costs, and a lack of merit to the proposed appeal, deeming it part of an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal panel, reviewing under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision, finding no error in the application of the legal test for extension of time and noting the appeal was patently unmeritorious.

The panel dismissed the motion and awarded costs to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellant, Assignment Credit Corp., was ordered to pay costs to several respondents (MCAP Financial Corporation, Dorr Capital Corporation, and Cherniak Law Professional Corporation).

The court rejected the appellant's argument that prior costs agreements should stand, as they were made before the appellant's non-disclosure of a material fact (that the Mesbur Judgment was obtained on consent) was revealed.

This non-disclosure, which impacted the second issue of the appeal, justified an elevated costs award on a solicitor-client basis for the affected respondents.

The 167 respondents were denied costs due to their own failure to disclose the consent judgment and their underlying financial obligations.

This is an appeal from a Master's decision regarding an undertakings and refusals motion.

The appellant, Classic Furs Company Ltd., sought to compel The Northwest Company LP and its employee Jason White to answer certain refused questions and provide further documentation related to shipping, customs, and supplier invoices for coyote furs, as well as accounting treatment of invoices.

The Master had largely ruled in favour of the respondents.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Master's discretionary decisions on sufficiency of production and findings of irrelevance for the requested documents and questions, applying the palpable and overriding error standard for discretionary matters and correctness for relevance.

The applicant, Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1328, sought full indemnity costs after successfully obtaining an order permitting entry into a condominium unit owned by 2145401 Ontario Inc. and occupied by Paul Starkman.

The respondents opposed, arguing for partial indemnity costs based on usual civil procedure principles.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $10,000 in fees and $827.06 in disbursements, inclusive of HST, finding that while the applicant was wholly successful, neither party was blameless in the underlying dispute, and the condominium's indemnity provisions did not mandate full indemnity for legal costs.

Conterra Restoration Ltd. (Conterra) claimed $109,451.35 from Irving Moishe Kirsch (Kirsch) for additional concrete work and waterproofing performed on his property.

Kirsch argued that these additional works required written change orders under their contract.

The court found that the contract was not a fixed-price agreement and that the additional concrete work fell within the scope of work priced on a per-unit basis, thus not requiring a written change order.

While the waterproofing work was outside the original contract scope, the court found that Kirsch had orally authorized it.

The court also held that Kirsch's oral approvals constituted a waiver by conduct of any strict contractual requirement for written change orders.

Consequently, Kirsch was found liable to Conterra for the claimed amount.

Kirsch's third-party claim against Pancon Engineering Ltd. for contribution and indemnity was dismissed.

Following a successful application to enforce a settlement, the applicants sought costs against the respondent executor and the estate.

The court awarded full indemnity costs, including pre-judgment interest, to the applicants, finding their actual costs of $24,549.29 to be proven, reasonable, and foreseeable.

The decision detailed the distribution of estate funds, prioritizing the settlement payments, pre-judgment interest, and costs to the applicants over the respondent's residual entitlement.

This endorsement addresses a costs motion brought by the Respondent following the Applicant's unsuccessful motion for document production, further questioning, and interim legal funding.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $10,000 to the Respondent, finding that while the Applicant's position lacked merit, it was not unreasonable enough to warrant substantial indemnity.