Christopher J. Cosgriffe

The appellants appealed a partial summary judgment that allowed the respondent's action for wrongful dismissal and awarded damages based on a one-year notice period.

The motion judge had refused to admit new evidence regarding an employment contract the respondent signed with another firm shortly after termination.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in failing to admit the new evidence, which raised issues about the respondent's actions and intentions.

The Court set aside the order and referred the entire matter for trial alongside the existing counter-claim and oppression action.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granting the respondent over $2.2 million for unpaid commercial leases of forestry equipment.

The appellants argued the respondent was not the proper assignee, disputed the amount owing, and claimed equipment malfunctions excused payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the respondent was the assignee, the debt calculation was correct, and broad exclusion clauses in the leases precluded the equipment malfunction defence.

The court also quashed the respondent's cross-appeal regarding a stay of execution for lack of jurisdiction.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on two offers to settle.

The defendants argued costs should be payable in the cause or fixed on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the plaintiff was not entitled to substantial indemnity costs because the first offer had expired and the judgment did not meet or exceed the second offer's terms.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $65,000, inclusive of disbursements, payable forthwith.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendant for amounts owing under commercial equipment leases and against the remaining defendants under unconditional guarantees.

The defendants argued there was no valid assignment of the leases, raised credibility issues, and claimed the plaintiff fundamentally breached the leases by providing defective equipment, thereby invalidating the exclusion clauses.

Applying the Tercon framework, the court enforced the exclusion clauses and found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

Summary judgment was granted for over $2.2 million against the corporate defendant and $500,000 against the guarantors, but execution was stayed pending the resolution of the defendants' counterclaim.

The plaintiff, former president and CEO of the defendant investment management company, sued for constructive dismissal and breach of contract after the employer refused to pay a 10% bonus on a capital gain realized from a real estate joint venture.

The employer counterclaimed, alleging the plaintiff breached his duties by failing to secure an asset management agreement for the project.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the plaintiff was contractually entitled to the bonus, awarding $329,687.00, as the capital gain was not specifically excluded from his employment memorandum.

However, the court dismissed the constructive dismissal claim, finding that the dispute over a one-time bonus calculation did not evince an intention by the employer to no longer be bound by the contract.

The employer's counterclaim was dismissed as entirely without merit, and the plaintiff was granted indemnification for his costs in defending the counterclaim pursuant to a corporate indemnification agreement.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision finding that funds received by the respondent were not subject to an owner's trust under s. 7 of the Construction Lien Act and that there was no breach of trust regarding other funds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error by the motion judge on the first issue, and noting that the second issue was improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

The respondent's cross-appeal on costs was also dismissed.

The applicant sought an order permitting removal of a boundary tree damaged in the 2013 ice storm after arborists reported it was unsafe and a branch had already damaged a neighbouring property.

The respondent opposed removal and relied on a statutory consent requirement under the Forestry Act.

The court held that s. 10(3) of the Forestry Act did not apply as between co-owners of a boundary tree and that the dispute was governed by the common law of nuisance.

Because the tree presented a patent and continuing danger, the respondent was obliged to abate the nuisance and was ordered not to interfere with removal and to pay half the removal costs.

The plaintiff sought leave under Rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to bring a summary judgment motion to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaim after the action had already been set down for trial.

The plaintiff also requested that the defendants’ affidavit evidence be struck because the affiant had not been cross‑examined.

The court declined to strike the affidavit, finding no unjustified refusal to attend for cross‑examination.

Applying principles of proportionality and case management, the court held that a summary judgment motion would not be the most efficient procedure, risked duplicative proceedings and inconsistent factual findings, and could delay the scheduled trial.

Leave to bring the summary judgment motion was therefore refused.

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

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's reasons, noting that the appellants essentially reargued the motion.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff appealed a motion judge's order substituting a former employee as the discovery witness for the corporate defendant instead of its president and CEO.

The plaintiff argued the former employee was not an eligible witness under Rule 31.03(2)(a) and that he should have been granted an adjournment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff could not raise the eligibility issue for the first time on appeal and that the motion judge did not err in refusing the adjournment.

Following the dissolution of ex parte Mareva injunctions obtained by the plaintiffs, the defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis for the motions that resulted in the injunctions being set aside.

The court held that the defendant was the successful party on the motions and was entitled to costs.

However, substantial indemnity costs were not warranted in the circumstances.

The court fixed costs at $6,500 on a partial indemnity basis, payable upon termination of the action, with liability joint between the plaintiffs.

Any damages flowing from the granting of the injunction were left to be determined in future proceedings.

The moving parties, officers and directors of the Gandi Group, sought leave to appeal a motion judge's order in CCAA proceedings.

The motion judge had limited their indemnity claims to specific corporate entities, subordinated one claim to a major creditor, and characterized the indemnity claims as 'equity claims' under the CCAA, thereby subordinating them to unsecured creditors.

The Court of Appeal applied the Stelco test and denied leave to appeal, finding the issues were either factual, not of significance to the practice, or lacked prima facie merit.

The appellant bank alleged that the respondent employee engaged in an illicit currency arbitrage scheme and unilaterally froze his bank accounts, including accounts at an affiliate and a third-party bank.

The respondent brought a motion for the release of the funds, which the motion judge granted for the non-appellant accounts.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the motion should be treated as one for summary judgment, and affirmed that the bank had no legal basis to unilaterally freeze the accounts at the affiliate and third-party bank without obtaining an interlocutory injunction.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to decline jurisdiction and permanently stay its application against the respondent arbitration centre.

The Court of Appeal upheld the stay, finding the motion judge properly exercised his discretion based on forum non conveniens, as the underlying arbitration was rooted in Quebec.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to set aside additional relief granted by the motion judge that was neither requested by the respondent nor consistent with declining jurisdiction.

The respondents brought motions to quash the appellant's appeal from an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal granted the motions and quashed the appeal, finding that the appellant had appealed to the wrong court.

The proper appeal route was to a panel of the Divisional Court on a motion under section 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The self-represented appellant purported to appeal a costs-only order following the dismissal of his underlying action.

The Court of Appeal held that there is no right of appeal from a costs order and that leave is required.

Treating the materials as an application for leave to appeal costs, the Court refused leave and awarded costs of $1,000 to each of the four responding groups.

The moving party sought to set aside three orders made by the Deputy Registrar dismissing his appeals for failing to perfect them.

The underlying orders had struck out the moving party's claims against various defendants, including the Ontario Human Rights Commission, former employers, and their lawyers, for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motions, finding that the moving party's delay contributed to the failure to perfect and that the proposed appeals had no reasonable prospect of success, as the OHRC cannot be sued, responses to OHRC complaints are protected by absolute privilege, and the pleadings failed to disclose known causes of action.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment allocating liability for environmental damages caused by the escape of toluene from an underground storage tank.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in her factual findings, which were based on inferences drawn from incomplete evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's meticulous and detailed reasons.

The court also refused leave to appeal costs and upheld an amendment to the judgment to include GST.

The appellant brought an unopposed appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal set aside the portion of the judgment ordering a reference, finding the motion judge erred in interpreting a UAE judgment.

The Court also ordered the return of security for costs to the appellant, awarded pre- and post-judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act, and fixed costs for both the appeal and the court below.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment, arguing the trial judge reversed the onus of proof and misapprehended evidence regarding a contract dispute.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that because time was not of the essence, the appellants bore the onus to prove the respondent caused the delay and resulting damages.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, noting the appellants continued to pay the respondent without complaint until well after completion.