Matthew Moloci

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order transferring a matter from the Family Law Team to the Civil Law Team in Toronto.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was good reason to doubt the motion judge's finding on jurisdiction, the decision to have the matter addressed by the Civil Law Team was an exercise of administrative discretion that did not raise a matter of such importance to warrant leave to appeal.

In a proposed class action alleging systemic gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment within the Waterloo Regional Police Service, the parties brought several pre-certification motions.

The plaintiffs' motions to compel answers to questions refused on cross-examination by the Chief of Police and the Association President were dismissed.

The defendants' motions to strike the plaintiffs' expert evidence and portions of the plaintiffs' affidavits were deemed premature and deferred to the certification motion, though the expert opinion portion of the report was excluded.

The appellants appealed the motion judge's refusal to stay a partial summary judgment until all litigation between the parties was resolved.

The Court of Appeal held that the refusal to stay the judgment was an exercise of the motion judge's discretion and found no basis to interfere.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $7,500.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondents in the amount of $20,000, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that awarded him $3,789.93 in damages based on a 15-day notice termination clause in his agreement with the respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's factual findings or her interpretation of the clear language of the agreement, which allowed termination for any reason on 15 days' written notice, regardless of whether the appellant was an employee or an independent contractor.

The self-represented appellant moved to review an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal sitting in chambers.

The chambers judge had validated service of the respondent's certificate, directed that all trial evidence was necessary for the appeal, and required the appellant to order the transcripts.

The panel dismissed the motion, finding that the transcripts were indeed necessary for a full and fair hearing, but extended the deadline for the appellant to order them.

The plaintiff appealed a trial judge's decision to stay the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.

The trial judge, on his own motion during the trial, raised the issue of jurisdiction and applied the Muscutt factors to find no real and substantial connection with Ontario.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the defendants had attorned to Ontario's jurisdiction by participating extensively in the litigation, including pleadings, discoveries, and the trial itself.

The stay was lifted, and a new trial was ordered before a different judge.