Civil Litigation - Defendant

Electricity ratepayers brought an action seeking damages and declaratory relief concerning the sale of shares in Hydro One, alleging that the Premier and Ministers acted in bad faith to reward political donors and obtain further donations to the Ontario Liberal Party.

The motion judge struck out the claim under Rule 21, finding it was not justiciable as it concerned core policy and the pleadings were inadequate to support an inference of bad faith.

The appellants appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in assessing the facts in isolation, misconstruing material facts, and failing to accept pleaded facts as true.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants' allegations were insufficient to plead bad faith and that accepting such a pleading would undermine the immunity afforded to core policy decisions.

The respondent slipped and fell on a wet floor in the vestibule of a department store operated by the appellants, fracturing her kneecap.

The trial judge found the appellants liable for negligence under the Occupiers' Liability Act, concluding that the wet floor caused the fall and that the appellants lacked an effective inspection or maintenance system.

The appellants appealed, arguing the trial judge failed to require proof that the wet floor created an unreasonable risk of harm and erred in rejecting expert evidence about the safety of the tile flooring.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding the trial judge properly applied the statutory duty of care and reasonably rejected the expert evidence.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his negligence claim against a solicitor.

The appellant had retained the respondent solicitor to assume carriage of three actions.

The appellant alleged that the respondent's errors caused two actions to be dismissed and prevented execution of a judgment in one action, and that a third action was not prosecuted diligently, resulting in a judgment that could not be executed due to the defendant's bankruptcy.

The motion judge dismissed the claim on summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence of negligence and no proven loss.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the appellant failed to meet the onus on summary judgment to put his best foot forward and demonstrate a genuine issue for trial, particularly regarding causation and quantifiable loss.

The appellant, a distributor of the respondent's product, appealed a summary judgment awarding the respondent payment for goods sold and delivered in the amount of $47,301.92 USD plus interest and costs.

The appellant raised defences of waiver and failure to mitigate, claiming the respondent had allegedly agreed to take back unrelated product ordered years prior.

The Court of Appeal found no factual foundation for either defence and upheld the summary judgment.

The court also rejected the appellant's challenge to the costs award on a substantial indemnity basis, finding the offer to settle complied with applicable rules.

Appeal from a trial judgment dismissing the appellant's action for misuse of confidential information and spoliation.

The appellant alleged that the respondent West Face Capital Inc. improperly obtained and used confidential information about the appellant's bid to acquire WIND Mobile Inc., allegedly obtained from a former employee who moved to West Face.

The trial judge dismissed all claims, finding that the appellant failed to prove that confidential information was provided to West Face or that any such information was used in West Face's successful competing bid.

The trial judge also found that the appellant's choice to terminate negotiations due to a break fee demand, rather than West Face's competing bid, caused the failure of the appellant's acquisition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment and dismissed the appeal, as well as the application for leave to appeal the costs orders.

The appellant sought an extension of time to file a notice of motion for a panel review of a security for costs order made by a single judge of the Court of Appeal.

The motion was filed outside the four-day service window required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion judge granted the extension of time, considering factors including the appellant's intention to seek review, the engagement of liberty of the subject, the non-frivolous nature of the underlying appeal, and the unpredictability of deference afforded to security for costs orders.

The motion was directed to be heard in writing by a panel rather than orally to prevent further delay.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 20, 2017.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's reasons and dismissed the appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the sum of $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action by the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellant's statement of claim alleged that criminals associated with government had implanted microchips in his body and brain, and that a hospital had misdiagnosed him with schizophrenia when the real cause was the implanted microchips.

He sought damages of $350 billion.

The trial judge dismissed the action without notice to the appellant, finding that the claim disclosed no cause of action and that the appellant required medical assistance.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's decision.

This is a costs decision on appeal from a Superior Court judgment.

The appellant appealed the decision of Justice James F. Diamond dated August 22, 2016, and the associated costs order dated September 27, 2016.

The Court of Appeal reviewed the costs submissions of both parties and determined that the respondent was entitled to costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $80,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court found no basis for awarding costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's dismissal of an appeal.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, citing the nature of the underlying allegations and the trial judge's findings.

The appellants argued for costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale, finding that while substantial indemnity costs were appropriate at trial due to the appellants' conduct, there was no principled basis to impose such costs for the appeal itself.

The appellants had a right to appeal and raised legitimate issues.

The appellant, a distributor of the respondent's products, appealed a summary judgment that dismissed its action and granted judgment on the respondent's counterclaim for approximately $430,000 in unpaid product purchases.

The motion judge found that the respondent properly terminated the distribution agreement based on the appellant's breach, including failure to honour customer orders and circulation of disparaging letters about the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial and rejecting the appellant's allegations of misuse of confidential information and interference with contractual relations.

Appeal from a Superior Court judgment in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant-appellants admitted liability, and the sole issue was damages.

A jury awarded substantial damages for future loss of income, cost of medical care, and $225,000 in general damages for pain and suffering.

The appellants challenged the award on three grounds: restriction of expert testimony, failure to declare a mistrial due to inappropriate closing submissions, and insufficient guidance on the range for non-pecuniary damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the jury's award.

CUMIS General Insurance Company appealed a trial judgment finding that an unlicensed driver operated the respondent's vehicle without consent, either express or implied.

CUMIS argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in her factual findings and failed to establish the tort of negligent entrustment.

The appellate court rejected all of CUMIS's arguments, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's credibility assessments and factual conclusions.

The court also held that even if negligent entrustment exists in Ontario, it could not be established given the finding of no implied consent.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his civil action for damages arising from his arrest on February 13, 2013.

The motion judge had dismissed the action as time-barred, finding that the limitation period for battery and false arrest claims crystallized on the date of arrest.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that where a battery action is a mirror image of criminal charges, the discovery date is when the criminal proceedings conclude, not when the arrest occurs.

The appellant's action, commenced May 13, 2016, was within two years of the October 22, 2015 conclusion of the criminal charges via peace bond and therefore not time-barred.

The respondent was successful in opposing the appellant's motion for a stay pending appeal of a mandatory order to amend a Notice of Termination filed with the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada.

The court awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $3,500.00, payable within 30 days.

The appellant's arguments that costs should be deferred pending the outcome of the appeal were rejected on the basis that success on a motion is assessed at the time the motion is decided, not retroactively based on appeal outcomes.

On appeal from a motion judge's decision to enforce a settlement agreement, the appellants challenged the motion judge's finding that a verbal settlement agreement had been reached between the respondent's counsel and the litigation administrator of the deceased defendant's estate on February 9, 2016.

The appellants argued that the motion judge erred in failing to apply Rule 49.09, in finding there was no genuine issue regarding intent to create a legally binding agreement, and in failing to consider whether the settlement should be enforced.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Rule 49 did not apply as no Rule 49 offers were served, that the motion judge's finding of a binding agreement was supported by detailed reasons with no palpable and overriding error, and that the motion judge had fully considered all relevant factors regarding enforcement.

The defendant brought a motion to remove the plaintiffs' counsel, Robert Tanner and Tanner & Guiney, on the grounds of a disqualifying conflict of interest.

The defendant argued that Mr. Tanner would likely be an important witness at trial and had a direct interest in the litigation, as the current action alleged professional negligence against the defendant in an underlying action where Tanner subsequently acted for the plaintiffs.

The court considered the balancing of maintaining high standards of the legal profession, the integrity of the justice system, and the litigant's right to counsel of choice.

The Master found that Tanner's role as an advocate could not be reconciled with his role as a witness, given the material facts he would need to testify about regarding his actions in the underlying action and the allegations of his own potential negligence.

The motion was granted, and Tanner was removed as counsel.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a settlement reached on behalf of two infant plaintiffs, who were claimants under the Family Law Act following their father's car accident.

The court identified several deficiencies in the evidence, including the lack of a breakdown between damages and pre-judgment interest, unclear plans for the settlement funds, conflicting information regarding the family's living situation, and an apparent undervaluation of the infant plaintiffs' claims for loss of care, guidance, and companionship.

The court also noted the absence of recommended neuropsychological and in-home assessment reports.

Consequently, the court was unable to approve the settlement and ordered counsel to appear in court for further directions.

This motion sought to correct the plaintiff's name to include a litigation guardian, Valerie Lummack by her litigation guardian Keith Lummack, due to Valerie's alleged mental incapacity.

The court reviewed conflicting expert evidence regarding Valerie's capacity to instruct counsel, noting discrepancies and the lack of accommodation for her communication deficits in the assessments.

The court emphasized the expert's duty to assist the court and directed the plaintiff's expert to conduct a further clinical interview with Valerie, specifically utilizing accommodations for her communication deficits, or provide reasons why such accommodations are unnecessary, within 30 days.

The defendants were granted leave to file a responding report.