Elizabeth Roberts

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing her motion for leave to appeal a summary judgment that dismissed her $5,000,000 solicitor negligence claim.

The Divisional Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as section 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act limits its jurisdiction to final orders for amounts not exceeding $50,000.

Because the court lacked jurisdiction, the motion to set aside the Registrar's order was dismissed.

No costs were awarded due to the plaintiff having been misdirected by court staff regarding the proper appellate court.

The appellant purchased a commercial property from the respondents and gave a vendor take back mortgage.

The respondents remained as tenants.

The appellant sued in Small Claims Court for unpaid rent and property removal costs, while the respondents counterclaimed.

During the trial, the respondents' counsel withdrew, and the Deputy Judge ordered the appellant to pay the outstanding mortgage balance of $59,235.31 into court to obtain a discharge and avoid prejudice from the delay.

The Deputy Judge ultimately awarded the appellant $25,000 plus costs, but ordered the remaining funds in court paid to the respondents, failing to account for agreed-upon rent set-offs that were not formally pleaded.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while the Deputy Judge exceeded Small Claims jurisdiction by ordering the $59,235.31 payment, the Superior Court had jurisdiction under s. 134(1) of the Courts of Justice Act to correct the unintended consequences.

The appeal was allowed, and judgment was granted to the appellant for $53,505 plus costs, to be paid from the funds in court.

The respondent brought a motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) obtained without notice by the applicant.

The parties were involved in a joint venture to re-develop properties, and a dispute arose over an agreement of purchase and sale for one of the properties owned by the respondent.

The court found that the applicant established a triable issue regarding a reasonable claim to an interest in the property, as the reasons for the failure to close the transaction remained unclear and could not be resolved on the paper record.

The motion to discharge the CPL was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendant to conduct additional email searches related to the selection of engineers for a project, following an alleged breach of contract.

The plaintiff claimed he was not engaged for the project despite an exclusivity agreement.

The defendant argued that the selection was made by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and that extensive, targeted searches for the plaintiff's name had already been conducted without yielding relevant emails.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding the requested searches to be of questionable relevance, speculative, and inconsistent with the principle of proportionality under Rule 29.2.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, given the comprehensive searches already performed by the defendant and the production of definitive documents.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a civil claim for sexual assault, battery, and breach of fiduciary duty against her former criminal lawyer.

The defendant had previously pleaded guilty to criminal assault for the same incident but filed no evidence on the summary judgment motion, citing his Alzheimer's diagnosis.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on liability, as the defendant conceded the facts supporting the criminal conviction.

The court refused to adjourn the motion for a defence medical due to the defendant's delay.

The court awarded the plaintiff $70,000 in general non-pecuniary damages and $5,000 for future therapy costs.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs of $25,526, including a request that costs be paid personally by the plaintiff's counsel.

The court found the requested amount disproportionate to the issue and time incurred, and declined to order costs against counsel personally.

The court fixed costs at $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable by the plaintiff.

The moving party appealed a motion judge's order dismissing his motion for a stay of a contempt finding and sentence pending appeal, and ordering security for costs.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in concluding there was no serious question to be argued, noting an arguable issue regarding the proper procedure for enforcing a conditional sentence for contempt.

The Court granted the stay pending appeal, varied the security for costs order to $10,000, and set aside the order dismissing the appeal for delay.