Not listed

The Attorney General of Canada requested that the plaintiff's statement of claim be referred to the court under Rule 2.1.01(6) to be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious.

The plaintiff alleged medical malpractice and sought Charter remedies arising from his arrest and incarceration.

The court declined to issue a notice to dismiss the action, finding that while the pleading required work, a claim for failure to provide medical care to a prisoner is not necessarily frivolous on its face.

The decision was made without prejudice to the defendants bringing formal motions to strike.

The respondent husband sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that dismissed his motion to sever his claim for divorce from the applicant wife's claims for corollary relief.

The motion judge had refused severance on the basis that the husband's failure to provide financial disclosure prejudiced the wife, and that severing the divorce could cause her legal disadvantage by terminating her rights under the Succession Law Reform Act in the event of his intestacy.

The court found no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, as the potential loss of estate rights and insurance coverage constituted valid legal disadvantages under Rule 12(6) of the Family Law Rules.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant filed an application to re-open a 2009 decision of the Court of Appeal and to file fresh evidence.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed evidence did not meet the test for the admission of fresh evidence on appeal, nor the criteria for reopening a decision under Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant filed an application to re-open a 2009 decision of the Court of Appeal and to file fresh evidence.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed evidence did not meet the test for the admission of fresh evidence on appeal, nor the criteria for reopening a decision under Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Following the offender's conviction for procuring and exercising control over a prostitute, the court ordered a Pre-Sentence Report.

Quebec probation services requested a lengthy extension and communicated in French.

The court accommodated the delay by rescheduling the sentencing hearing but issued an endorsement ordering that the report be filed by the extended deadline and in English, as the trial was conducted in English.

Following the offender's conviction for procuring and exercising control over a prostitute, the court ordered a Pre-Sentence Report.

Quebec probation services requested a lengthy extension and communicated in French.

The court accommodated the delay by rescheduling the sentencing hearing but issued an endorsement ordering that the report be filed by the extended deadline and in English, as the trial was conducted in English.

The parties reached a settlement.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal without costs.

The accused, a seasonal worker and undischarged bankrupt, refused to accept a conditional legal aid certificate requiring him to make monthly payments of $300, believing he could not afford them.

The motion judge granted a Rowbotham order, finding the conditional offer tantamount to a denial of legal aid.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the order, holding that the accused's refusal to accept the terms of the certificate did not equate to a denial of legal aid, which is a prerequisite for a Rowbotham order.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The matter was converted into a motion by both parties to set aside the appealed order.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, set aside the order below, and reinstated the original order.

The plaintiff appealed a master's decision regarding forum non conveniens.

The master had found that the contract underlying the claim was subject to Virginia law and the parties had agreed to Virginia courts for dispute resolution.

The Divisional Court held that the master did not err in law in addressing the test for 'carrying on business' in Ontario or in weighing the factors in favour of the defendant.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The moving parties brought a motion to quash the appeals of an order by Farley J. The Court of Appeal determined that the order in question was interlocutory, as it merely postponed the appellants' entitlement to proceed with their counterclaim in Ontario pending the completion of United States proceedings, rather than finally deciding any issue against them.

Consequently, the appeals were quashed.

The appellant appealed a decision striking their pleadings for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action under Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, citing leading jurisprudence on deep vein thrombosis and air travel.

The appellant appealed a trial decision that turned entirely on findings of fact.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's essential findings.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a decision interpreting Clause 2.7 of an asset purchase agreement.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the clause was clear and unambiguous, producing a commercially reasonable result.

The court upheld the refusal to admit extrinsic evidence or direct a trial on the rectification claim, and dismissed the claim against Stikeman Elliott.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision by Swinton J. dismissing their claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's principles or application, as the appellants produced no evidence of publication by the respondents beyond a communication that was absolutely privileged.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim for real estate commission on the sale of an apartment building.

The trial judge found that the respondents did not deliberately delay the transaction to avoid paying commission and that the final offer was a separate and discrete transaction.

The Court of Appeal held that these findings of fact were well supported by the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's decision, arguing that the trial judge erred in findings of fact and that the respondent's delay in initiating proceedings should disentitle them from advancing their claims.

The Court of Appeal found no global error in the findings of fact and agreed with the trial judge regarding the delay.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, seeking to set aside his guilty plea on the basis that it was involuntary due to pressure from his trial counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's refusal to strike the plea, as the appellant's affidavit lacked credibility and did not demonstrate undue pressure.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the Court finding no error in principle in the trial judge's exercise of discretion under s. 719(3) of the Criminal Code regarding credit for pretrial custody.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision regarding the quantum and duration of support payments.

The Ontario Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, applying the standard of review from Hickey v. Hickey, and concluded that the facts did not warrant substituting its decision for that of the trial judge.

Following a judgment awarding aggravated and punitive damages for sexual assaults, the appellant applied for a re-hearing on the issue of interest.

On consent of the parties, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered that $15,017.48 in interest be awarded on the aggravated damages from the mid-point of the assaults to the date of judgment, with no interest on the punitive damages.