Civil Litigation - Plaintiff

The defendants brought a motion for non-suit to dismiss the plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim and to withdraw the defence of qualified privilege from the jury regarding a defamation counterclaim.

The court granted the motion for non-suit, finding no evidence that the defendants initiated the criminal proceedings, as the police exercised independent discretion in laying sexual assault charges.

The court also withdrew the defence of qualified privilege, ruling that statements made by the plaintiffs by counterclaim to a priest did not occur on a recognized occasion of qualified privilege, as there was no reciprocal duty or interest.

The plaintiff, a federal inmate, brought a negligence claim arising from a slip and fall on icy prison steps.

The court held that the Crown, as occupier and as custodian of inmates, failed to maintain a reasonable winter safety system for the entrance area and could not rely on a loosely enforced non-visitation rule, particularly given the plaintiff's functional illiteracy and the lack of effective communication of institutional rules.

The court found the plaintiff contributorily negligent for proceeding in visibly hazardous conditions and likely wearing less suitable footwear.

Non-pecuniary damages were assessed at $100,000, reduced by 30% for contributory negligence, resulting in judgment for $70,000 plus interest.

Following a jury verdict in a motor vehicle tort action, the court determined the post-verdict deductibility of collateral benefits from the plaintiff's past income loss award.

Applying ss. 267.5(1) and 267.8(1) of the Insurance Act, the court first reduced the gross past income loss award to 80 per cent of net income loss, then deducted all income replacement benefits received during the same relevant period.

The court rejected a weekly or speculative parsing of the jury's lump-sum award and held that the total statutory accident benefits received for that period had to be deducted from the total amount to which the plaintiff was entitled.

As the benefits received exceeded the net recoverable amount, the plaintiff's entitlement for past income loss was reduced to nil.

The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

After the insurer denied certain benefits, the respondent applied for mediation but commenced a civil action just days later, before the 60-day statutory mediation period expired.

The insurer brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action under s. 281(2) of the Insurance Act, which the motion judge dismissed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the action, holding that the statute clearly bars the commencement of a proceeding until mediation has failed or the 60-day period has expired.

The appellant leased a luxury vehicle from the respondent but returned it to a third-party dealership a few months later to purchase a different vehicle, claiming an oral agreement allowed him to do so.

The respondent sued for breach of the lease, claiming accelerated rent and damages for the loss on the sale of the vehicle.

The trial judge found the appellant liable, rejecting the argument that the dealership acted as the respondent's agent.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding there was no evidence of agency, the accelerated rent clause was an enforceable liquidated damages provision, and the respondent had reasonably mitigated its damages.

The appellant appealed an order striking his claim against the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's decision and concluding that the constitutional challenge could not succeed.

The Court also denied leave to amend the claim, holding that it was plain and obvious the claim was doomed to fail.

The appellant financed the respondent's purchase of equipment through a lease agreement.

The respondent sued, alleging the equipment was defective, and the appellant counterclaimed for default under the lease, moving for summary judgment.

The motion judge dismissed the appellant's motion and counterclaim, finding no contract existed due to delay in acceptance and intervening defects.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding there were triable issues regarding whether the contract was accepted by conduct and whether the goods' condition changed, and restored the counterclaim for trial.

The appellant law firm appealed a decision directing the assessment of its legal accounts under the Solicitors Act, arguing the application judge erred in finding 'special circumstances' since the accounts were paid more than 12 months prior.

The respondents cross-appealed the denial of their costs for the application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the application judge's discretionary decisions on special circumstances and costs were entitled to deference and revealed no error in principle.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the lower court judge and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent in the amount of $3,000.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action against his former litigation counsel for solicitor's negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The appellant alleged his counsel wrongly consented to default judgment and failed to respond to the bank's counsel, leading to a receivership over his farm properties.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's factual conclusions—that the counsel acted diligently and was not negligent—were firmly anchored in the evidentiary record and free from palpable and overriding error.

The appeal regarding trial costs was also dismissed.

The appellant rented a hot water heater to the respondent.

The heater leaked, causing property damage.

The trial judge found the appellant liable based on an implied warranty of fitness, and the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

On further appeal, the Court of Appeal held that section 9(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 applied retrospectively to the rental agreement, importing the implied warranty of fitness from section 15 of the Sale of Goods Act.

The court found the appellant breached this warranty because the water heater was not reasonably fit for its purpose.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondents suffered property damage when their rented hot water heater leaked.

They brought a subrogated claim in Small Claims Court and were awarded damages.

The appellant's appeal to the Divisional Court was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's further appeal, relying on the reasons given in the companion case of Szilvasy v. Reliance Home Comfort Limited Partnership, which involved the application of s. 9(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 to the rental of a hot water heater.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial because the appellant had already obtained judgment for the full amount of its loss in a separate lawsuit and failed to establish damages against the respondents.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their medical malpractice claim against the respondent doctor.

The appellants argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in finding that the cause of the patient's bleeding was an IUD rather than a laceration or perforation caused by the respondent's negligence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusions and no reviewable error in her assessment of the evidence or exercise of discretion on costs.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's approval of a settlement entered into by the Public Guardian and Trustee as her litigation guardian, as well as the approval of legal fees.

The Court of Appeal found ample basis on the record to support the motion judge's conclusions and noted there was no admissible medical evidence to support an order to continue the proceeding without the litigation guardian.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision finding that its accounting records were insufficient to prove expenses properly chargeable to the respondent tenant as Additional Rent under a commercial lease.

The application judge had previously ruled that the lease did not require the tenant to pay standardized management fees, but allowed the landlord a second hearing to prove actual expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the landlord's materials were insufficient.

The court also upheld the costs award, noting the landlord's failure to respond to settlement offers and its role in prolonging the proceeding.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's refusal to amend their statement of claim to add a proposed defendant and change the location of a slip and fall accident.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the claim against the proposed defendant was statute-barred, as the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of discoverability under s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court also agreed that the doctrine of misnomer did not apply because the intended defendant did not know it was the target of the suit.

However, the Court granted leave to amend the statement of claim to change the location of the accident as against the existing defendant.

The appellant abandoned the appeal on consent without costs.

The respondents brought a motion seeking an order requiring the appellant's law firm, which was acting on a contingency fee basis, to post security for costs of the action and the appeal.

The appellant corporation and its principal were previously found to be impecunious.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that requiring lawyers on a contingency fee arrangement to post security for costs would impose a significant disincentive to such arrangements and run contrary to the rationale of promoting access to justice.

The appellant brought a class action against the City of Toronto and the TTC for business losses resulting from the construction of the St. Clair transit project.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding the claims were in substance for 'injurious affection' and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, confirming that the Class Proceedings Act is procedural and does not confer substantive jurisdiction.

The Court also struck the appellant's remaining claim for abuse of public authority for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.