James A. Ramsay

The plaintiff's action for damages was dismissed after his vacant house burned down and his insurance claim was denied.

The court determined the costs payable to the successful defendants.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis at $15,000 for the broker and $5,000 for the insurer, noting the insurer had improperly continued to charge premiums and the broker had poor record-keeping.

Following a successful negligence trial where damages were agreed at approximately $7.85 million, the plaintiffs sought costs of $660,000.

The plaintiffs had previously settled with two defendants for $1,000,000 and received costs up to October 2005.

The plaintiffs beat their Rule 49 offer to settle made on March 12, 2015.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, fixing the total costs payable by the remaining defendant at $400,000 all inclusive.

The testator died leaving property in Ontario and Germany.

His widow, who resided in Germany, moved for an extension of time to elect an equalization of net family property under the Family Law Act.

The trustee of the Ontario estate moved for directions.

The court dismissed the widow's motion, finding no apparent grounds for relief because section 15 of the Family Law Act dictates that spousal property rights are governed by the law of the last common habitual residence.

Since the spouses last lived together in Germany, German law applied, precluding a claim under section 5 of the Ontario Act.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an interest arbitration award that established a new job classification system and wage grid for the bargaining unit.

The union argued the panel's adoption of the employer's proposed wage grid violated s. 11(6) of the Canadian Human Rights Act by reducing male wages to achieve pay equity, and failed to apply the replication principle.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the panel's decision was reasonable.

The panel was tasked with creating a completely new classification system, not correcting an existing one, and reasonably concluded that s. 11(6) did not apply or was not breached.

The panel also reasonably applied the replication principle by considering objective market forces and economic realities.

The plaintiff, a 10-year-old boy, was struck by a vehicle while crossing a busy road at a school crosswalk.

The crossing guard employed by the defendant municipality had left her post early.

The driver of the vehicle was found to be speeding in poor weather conditions.

The court found both the driver and the municipality liable, apportioning fault equally at 50% each.

The court dismissed the defendants' claim of contributory negligence against the child.

The applicant, charged with attempting to obstruct justice, brought an application for certiorari to quash her committal for trial and mandamus to compel the preliminary inquiry judge to re-open the inquiry.

She argued the judge erred by refusing to allow her to cross-examine the affiant of a wiretap authorization and by failing to assist her, as an unrepresented accused, in seeking to cross-examine other witnesses under s. 540(9) of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge correctly applied the Garofoli test in denying the cross-examination of the affiant and did not exceed his jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the court found no denial of natural justice regarding the unrepresented applicant, as she had explicitly declined to call evidence or make submissions when given the opportunity.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board approving a subdivision plan, arguing it was denied natural justice because it did not receive notice of the hearing.

The moving party held an easement over land near the proposed subdivision but was not on the municipal tax roll.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the Board followed its standard notice procedures and was not required to notify an easement holder it could not have known about.

The court also found no error in the Board Chair's refusal to review and re-open the decision.

This was a costs decision following the defendant's successful summary judgment motion in a statutory accident benefits action.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were warranted because the plaintiff delayed for years in making the accident benefits claim and made unsupported allegations of dishonesty against the insurer.

The defendant's bill of costs was found to be modest.

Costs were fixed at $10,000 all-inclusive, payable by the plaintiff to the defendant.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding the calculation of seniority for On Call Relief Employees who become route-holding Rural and Suburban Mail Carriers.

The arbitrator found that, based on the collective agreement, seniority does not accrue during the period an employee works as an On Call Relief Employee.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding that it gave meaning to all relevant provisions of the collective agreement without modifying them.

The application for judicial review was dismissed, with one judge dissenting.

The Ottawa Police Services applied for judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission, which had reinstated a police officer previously dismissed for unsatisfactory work performance.

The Commission had found that the police service failed to strictly follow its established procedures under O. Reg. 268/10 before initiating the complaint.

The Divisional Court (majority) held that the Commission's strict interpretation of the regulation was unreasonable, finding that the police service's extensive ad hoc efforts to assist the officer substantially complied with the statutory requirements.

The application for judicial review was granted, the Commission's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted.

The appellant, a tenant in subsidized housing, appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claim for damages and partially allowing the landlord's counterclaim.

The appellant had spent her own money to repair flood damage after the landlord refused to do so.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal of her claim, agreeing it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act as she discovered her right to sue more than two years before filing.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding the counterclaim.

Although the appellant's affirmative claim was time-barred, she retained the right to use the landlord's breach of contract as an equitable set-off against the counterclaim for rent arrears.

The counterclaim award was therefore set aside, and costs were awarded to the appellant.

The defendant insurer moved for summary judgment dismissing a Statutory Accident Benefits action arising from a 2003 motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff did not file an application for accident benefits until 2014, despite receiving the required materials shortly after the accident and consulting counsel in 2009 about a potential claim.

The court held that the evidence could not establish a reasonable explanation for the extensive delay under s. 31 of O. Reg. 403/96, especially the unexplained period from 2009 to 2014.

The court also found the evidence incapable of supporting entitlement to benefits or a bad faith claim, and granted summary judgment dismissing the action.

The defendant regulator moved to strike a self-represented claim alleging reprisal, privacy violations, and accessibility-related breaches arising from an investigation into unlicensed legal services.

The court held the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action, including because the governing statute did not create a private law duty of care and conferred good-faith immunity on the regulator and its officers.

The court further held that the accessibility provisions relied on did not prohibit the investigation or create a civil cause of action on the pleaded facts.

The action was also found frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process because it attempted to re-litigate an earlier dismissed proceeding.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend and the action dismissed.

On cross-motions under Rule 54.09 opposing confirmation of an assessment officer’s report on three solicitor accounts, the court declined to further reduce the assessed fees apart from a disallowed contingency bonus.

The court held that the assessment officer lacked jurisdiction to determine the validity and fairness of the contingency fee agreement because that issue had not been referred for assessment.

In any event, the officer misconstrued the written agreement and made palpable and overriding factual errors in finding the bonus unfair.

The report was varied to restore the $500,000 contingency bonus, subject to further submissions on costs of the assessment, prejudgment interest, and costs of the motion.

The moving party (Third Party) brought a motion to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court, which had quashed its appeal from a Master's interlocutory orders regarding the procedure for a trade secrets protection motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the Master's orders were interlocutory and properly appealable only to a judge of the Superior Court.

The court also dismissed the moving party's requests to vary the order to permit examination of opposing counsel and to delete portions of the judge's endorsement, characterizing the moving party's conduct as an abuse of process.

The responding party's cross-motion was granted in part, requiring the moving party to obtain leave before bringing further procedural motions.

Full indemnity costs were awarded against the moving party.

The tenants appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board regarding the landlord's responsibility to maintain an elevator under s. 20 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Board was entitled to construe its home statute to consider the landlord's actions in the circumstances.

Finding no error of law, the court dismissed the appeal.

This was a costs endorsement following dismissal of a third party's motion for leave to bring a motion and for a medical examination.

The plaintiffs sought costs, but costs had not been addressed before the judge who dismissed the underlying motion retired.

The court held that it would decide the costs issue and permitted the parties to make further brief written submissions by a fixed deadline.

The respondent moved to vary spousal support following loss of employment after a long marriage in which the applicant had primarily remained at home and earned only modest income.

The court found only a limited material change in circumstances, accepted temporary unemployment for a six-month period, and otherwise held the moving party should still be capable of earning the previously imputed income.

The court was critical of the moving party's credibility and found no evidentiary basis to reduce support beyond that short interval.

The variation was granted only in part, arrears were reduced by $1,500, the arrears remained payable forthwith subject to enforcement arrangements, and no costs were ordered.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal an order freezing settlement funds, directing an assessment of former counsel's fees, and imposing a charge securing those fees.

The court applied the settled extension-of-time factors and held that, although the delay was short and strict prejudice was absent, there was no adequate explanation for the delay and the proposed appeal had no merit.

The court found the proposed grounds foreclosed by authority or illusory, noted the failure to provide the underlying reasons under appeal, and considered the broader pattern of delay in dealing with former counsel's account.

The justice of the case required that the extension be denied.

Following a short marriage ending in separation, the parties resolved to an equal parenting schedule but disputed principal residence, decision-making structure, child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The court held that both homes should be treated as the children's principal residence and left major disputes to parental consultation rather than mandating a dispute-resolution process.

Applying offset child support under s. 9 of the Guidelines, the court fixed support based on annual incomes of $82,000 and $12,000.

The applicant was awarded retroactive and time-limited spousal support, along with partial equalization and a transfer of the family law value of her interest in the respondent's pension.