Civil Litigation - Defendant

The appellant appealed an order finding him in contempt and dismissing his action for persistently refusing to attend court-ordered medical examinations in Toronto.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by not treating contempt as a last resort and by failing to accept his legitimate excuse for non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision to find the appellant in contempt and to dismiss the action, emphasizing the appellant's deliberate non-compliance and the futility of further opportunities to comply.

The appellant's solicitors, Stieber Berlach LLP, moved for an order removing them as solicitors of record for the appellant, Jeremy Williams, citing an irreparable breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship due to the client's lack of communication, failure to follow instructions, and non-compliance with the retainer agreement.

The appellant opposed the motion but failed to file responding materials.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that the relationship had broken down and that the appellant would not be materially prejudiced, despite the upcoming appeal hearing.

The court emphasized that the client's desire for the solicitor to continue is not determinative if the circumstances justify withdrawal.

This motion was brought by the appellant's solicitors, Miller Thomson LLP, seeking an order to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, primarily stemming from the appellant's failure to pay accounts and provide instructions.

The respondent opposed the immediate removal, arguing it would prejudice their pending motion to lift a stay of enforcement and obtain security for appeal costs, especially given an imminent receivership application against the appellant.

The court exercised its discretion to refuse immediate removal, ordering that the solicitors would only be removed after the disposition of the respondent's motion, finding this approach prevented prejudice to the respondent and upheld the administration of justice without unduly prejudicing the moving solicitors or their client.

The appellants, estates and family members of victims of the downing of Ukrainian Airlines flight PS752 by Iran, sought to enforce a default judgment against Iranian properties and bank accounts in Canada.

The motion judge dismissed the enforcement, finding the properties enjoyed diplomatic immunity.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, ruling that the Canadian Executive's determination, via a s. 11 certificate under the Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act, that the Iranian property retains diplomatic status is conclusive and not subject to judicial review based on the property's current "use" for diplomatic purposes, even after diplomatic relations were severed.

The court affirmed the Executive's exclusive prerogative in foreign relations and diplomatic immunity matters.

The appellant, Gamma Construction Ltd., appealed a lower court's decision regarding causation under the Insurance Act.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the application judge's conclusion that causation was not made out, applying the Amos v. The Insurance Corp. of British Columbia test.

The court found that the use of the automobile, as it related to the injuries, was merely incidental or fortuitous, and therefore, the causation finding was unassailable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

This appeal concerned the appropriate remedy for a party who deliberately accessed the opposing party's privileged information.

The application judge had struck the appellant's Notice of Appearance, barred them from filing evidence, and ordered the Partition Application to proceed undefended.

The appellant argued that this remedy was unpleaded, unproven, and that lesser remedies were available.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the application judge's decision.

The court found no error in applying the three-part test for unauthorized access to privileged documents, particularly given the appellant's failure to rebut the presumption of prejudice or propose effective alternative remedies.

IBM Canada Inc. appealed a summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal claim, challenging the 26-month reasonable notice period and the award of damages for Restricted Stock Units (RSUs).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that non-transferrable skills and the COVID-19 pandemic constituted exceptional circumstances justifying a notice period exceeding 24 months.

The court also upheld the RSU damages, finding the termination clause ambiguous and thus ineffective in limiting common law rights.

The appellants sought an adjournment of their appeal due to one appellant's serious medical condition and their current lack of counsel.

The court granted a brief, peremptory adjournment solely due to the medical unfitness of one appellant, emphasizing that future adjournments would require a formal motion and that the appeal would proceed regardless of medical issues or retained counsel on the new date.

Costs of the adjournment were awarded to the respondents.

This motion concerned a request for a stay pending appeal of a judgment secured by Lithium Royalty Corporation (LRC) after a bifurcated liability hearing in a breach of contract action.

The moving parties (Orion entities) sought a full stay of the underlying action and their appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for a full stay of the underlying action but granted a partial stay against two specific respondents, Bellatrix Ltd. and Orion Mine Finance (Master) Fund I LP, preventing enforcement actions without leave, due to the apparent strength of their appeals regarding corporate separateness.

The court also ordered a stay of the appeal itself (COA-23-CV-1029) pending the conclusion of the underlying trial to promote judicial efficiency and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The appellant, Payman Khanlari, appealed a summary judgment order that found him liable for unjust enrichment.

He argued that he was treated unfairly as a self-represented litigant and that the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment due to credibility issues.

The Court of Appeal rejected the argument regarding unfair treatment, noting the appellant's familiarity with legal proceedings.

However, the court found that the motion judge erred in quantifying the unjust enrichment by not accounting for payments admittedly made by the appellant to the respondent.

The appeal was allowed to vary the judgment amount.

The appellants sought orders under sections 134 and 135 of the Condominium Act, 1998, alleging various incidents and an ongoing failure by the respondents to reasonably respond to inquiries.

The appeal court was asked to overturn findings of fact made by the application judge.

The court found that all of the application judge's findings were reasonably open on the record and, therefore, dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

This 12-day trial addressed complex family law issues following the breakdown of a short marriage, including parenting arrangements, child's name change, child and spousal support, a Mehr (Islamic marriage contract) repayment obligation, and equalization of net family property.

The court granted the Mother primary residence and final decision-making authority for the child, ordered a name change to include the Father's preferred name, set child and spousal support, dismissed the Mehr claim due to uncertainty and lack of expert evidence, and found no equalization payment owing.

Costs were to be borne by each party.

The applicant, O.M., sought to confirm and replace provisions of minutes of settlement, including custody and access, alleging parental alienation by the respondent, S.K. S.K. made serious allegations of physical and sexual abuse against O.M. and sought primary custody with supervised access.

The court found S.K.'s evidence not credible due to internal inconsistencies and her behavior following the alleged incidents.

The court found that S.K. engaged in parental alienation strategies.

Consequently, the court granted O.M. temporary sole custody and primary care of the child, with limited access to S.K., and confirmed the minutes of settlement regarding exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and spousal support.

Interim child support was ordered in accordance with the minutes of settlement, with O.M. entitled to seek reconciliation for overpayments.

An appeal from a motion judge's decision to dismiss third-party claims against all persons except Barton Thomas Burron in a fraud matter involving Saint Luke Lutheran Church, an unincorporated association.

The motion judge had dismissed the third-party claims on the basis that only Burron had a distinct fiduciary duty and independent standard of care.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that complex issues regarding the status of the plaintiff, the application of law to unincorporated associations, the Negligence Act, and the Rules of Civil Procedure required a full evidentiary record and should proceed to trial rather than be dismissed on a motion.

The appellant failed to appear for the appeal hearing.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal and fixed costs at $10,000 all-inclusive against the appellant.

This is an appeal by the father (appellant) and a cross-appeal by the mother (respondent) from a trial decision concerning custody and access.

The trial judge had deleted a clause from a prior order requiring the mother to seek employment in the Waterloo Region and allowed the children to remain with the mother in Lindsay, Ontario.

The father argued the trial judge erred by treating the matter as mobility rather than enforcement of a contempt order and misapprehending evidence regarding the children's best interests.

The mother cross-appealed on costs and child support.

The appellate court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's decision to treat the matter as mobility and to determine the children's best interests based on current circumstances, upholding the mother as the primary caregiver.

The court also found no reason to intervene on the costs and child support issues.

Jason Poirier applied to quash a search warrant, arguing that an unrecorded conversation between the Justice of the Peace and the detective prior to the warrant's re-submission compromised the judicial process.

The court found that the absence of a record of this interaction, coupled with inconsistencies between the detective's recollection and the warrant amendments, prevented a reliable review of the Justice of the Peace's fairness and impartiality.

Consequently, the Crown failed to meet its burden of establishing the warrant's validity, and the search warrant was quashed.

The defendant insurer moved for an order that three related actions arising from a hotel parking garage collapse be tried together and transferred from Toronto to Kingston.

The actions included an insurance coverage claim and two negligence actions against contractors and engineers.

Applying Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the factors articulated in prior jurisprudence, the court held that the actions shared common issues of causation and overlapping damages evidence, such that trial together would avoid duplication of witnesses and inconsistent findings.

Although the insurance action was procedurally more advanced and delay in bringing the motion was noted, the efficiencies of a single trial outweighed the prejudice alleged by the plaintiff.

The court also found that Kingston was a significantly more appropriate venue under Rule 13.1.02 because the events, damages, subject property, and most parties were connected to Kingston.