OCA 2002

The appellant brought an action against the respondent, with whom she had a secret extra-marital affair for 14 years, claiming damages for failure to provide adequate child support.

The appellant had signed a release in 1974 for $27,500.

The motions judge struck out the appellant's claims under Rule 21.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the appellant's 26-year delay in seeking rescission of the release constituted acquiescence under the doctrine of laches, making her equitable claims certain to fail.

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 a decision, raising a challenge under section 2(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower court judge that a previous decision was determinative and that there was no evidentiary base to support the Charter challenge.

Costs were fixed at $12,500.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its action against the respondent insurance company.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the exclusion clause in the insurance policy was unambiguous and that the appellant's claim fell squarely within it.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision to strike a jury notice on the grounds of complexity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's discretion given the multiplicity of causes of action, defendants, heads of damages, and interlocking legal and factual issues.

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 appellants appealed a decision of the motions judge who refused leave to amend the statement of defence and granted summary judgment to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal held that the motions judge was required to hear the motion to amend first and had no basis to refuse leave under Rule 26.01.

The Court granted leave to amend the statement of defence and, finding that the amended pleadings raised genuine issues for trial, dismissed the respondent's motion for summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding the reasons of the lower court judge persuasive.

The respondent was awarded costs fixed at $9,000.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that they failed to meet the standard of care regarding the design of a carbonated beverage in a glass container.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were well supported by evidence that the product was dangerous and the manufacturer failed to take steps to reduce the risk of explosion.

A cross-appeal seeking to vary the apportionment of negligence was also dismissed, as it did not meet the threshold of a very strong and exceptional case.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed for a serious assault.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the sentence, noting it was appropriate given the serious nature of the assault and the injuries inflicted on the complainant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order made by Cumming J. The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that the order was interlocutory and that any appeal from it must be directed to the Divisional Court with leave.

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

The appellant appealed an order granting an injunction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's decision and noting that the impact of the decision is a matter for the arbitrator, not the court.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's reasons were exemplary and that there was no error in the appreciation of the facts or the law.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant, a single-purpose company incorporated for an acquisition, appealed a decision finding that solicitor-client privilege was lost due to a prima facie case of fraud.

The motion judge found that the appellant used corporate funds to benefit itself to the detriment of creditors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that because the finding of fraud embraced the entirety of the transaction, the usual two-stage process and document-by-document review were unnecessary.

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 appellant appealed a decision finding that its action under s. 132 of the Insurance Act was barred by the limitation period in paragraph 4 of the insurance contract.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court, noting there was no contractual language or conduct by the parties that would warrant departing from this result on public policy grounds.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $4,500.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's findings on liability and the quantum of damages.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's findings on liability to be reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The court also found no basis to interfere with the quantum of damages.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision, confining the appeal to the issue of good faith disclosure regarding ongoing negotiations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no obligation or basis for reliance on the information.

Costs were fixed at $30,000, with the court reducing the requested amount based on policy and accessibility concerns rather than questioning counsel's hours or quality.

The appellant sought specific performance of an agreement with an abatement equivalent to damages caused by the respondents' alleged breach of a promise of confidentiality.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's conclusion that the promise was collateral to the agreement and that specific performance with an abatement is not available in these circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought leave to appeal sentence following a conviction for aggravated assault causing catastrophic and permanent brain injury to the victim.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge did not err by placing significant weight on the brutal nature of the attack, the callous abandonment of the victim without medical assistance, and the devastating consequences of the assault.

The court found that the sentencing judge also properly considered mitigating background factors, remorse, prospects of rehabilitation, and pre-trial custody.

A 9-year penitentiary sentence was held to be within the appropriate range and the sentence appeal was dismissed.