Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order finding them in contempt of court for breaching a Mareva injunction and imposing a $150,000 fine payable to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the contempt finding and the substantial indemnity costs award of $57,000.

However, the Court held that a fine for civil contempt is an offence against the administration of justice and must be paid to the Crown, not the opposing party.

The fine was reduced to $10,000 and ordered payable to the Provincial Treasurer.

The appellant was severely injured when she lost control of her vehicle after hitting the respondent's dog on a country road.

At trial, a jury found the respondent 35% responsible and the appellant 65% contributorily negligent, assessing damages accordingly.

The appellant appealed the jury's findings on contributory negligence, apportionment of liability, and damages, arguing that the jury relied on unreliable evidence from child witnesses and was misdirected on mitigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly instructed the jury and that the jury's verdict was not so plainly unreasonable and unjust as to warrant appellate interference.

The appellants appealed the denial of their motion to set aside a noting in default.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by focusing solely on whether the appellants had formed an intent to defend before the deadline, failing to consider the full factual matrix, including the appellants' fear of attorning to the jurisdiction.

Finding no evidence of an intent to flout the rules, no inordinate delay, and no prejudice to the respondent, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the noting in default.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing a motion to validate the service of a statement of claim in a malicious prosecution action.

The claim was sent by regular mail to the respondent, a private citizen, but no receipt was returned and no personal or substitutional service was effected.

Although the Court of Appeal was satisfied the claim came to the respondent's notice, it found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary decision under Rule 16.08(a) to dismiss the motion, noting that almost ten years had passed since the events in question.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order granted by the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no genuine issue for trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The insurer appealed an order requiring it to indemnify the insured general contractors under two Commercial General Liability (CGL) policies for the cost of repairing structural defects in new homes caused by defective concrete supplied by a subcontractor.

The insurer argued that CGL policies inherently do not cover an insured's own defective work or product.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge correctly focused on the specific language of the policies rather than general insurance principles.

The policies contained an explicit exception to the defective work exclusion for work performed by a subcontractor, which operated to restore coverage.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that found a mutual mistake in a soil disposal contract and implied an industry standard for calculating volume.

The respondent had billed the appellants based on truck capacity rather than actual soil removed, resulting in a significantly higher invoice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding mutual mistake, the ability to calculate volume from weight, and the industry standard.

The Court held the contract was clear on its face and the appellants were only liable for the actual volume of soil removed.

The appellant appealed an order striking out his statement of claim without leave to amend and dismissing his action against two police officers.

The action arose from his alleged mistreatment when suspected of shoplifting.

The motion judge had struck the claim for failing to concisely state material facts, containing scandalous and embarrassing content, and disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's reasons and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants brought a second motion for summary judgment on the eve of a scheduled five-day trial.

The motion was dismissed, and the Divisional Court dismissed the subsequent appeal.

The Court of Appeal declined to address whether a party can bring more than one motion for summary judgment or the application of res judicata, finding that the Divisional Court did not err in dismissing the appeal given the timing of the motion.

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

In an addendum on costs following a successful appeal, the Court of Appeal declined to award costs to the successful appellants.

The majority held that the appellants' deliberate violation of a confidentiality agreement signed at mediation, combined with the novelty of the legal issues raised regarding mediation, justified a departure from the general rule that a successful party is entitled to costs.

A dissenting judge would have awarded costs, arguing the issues were not sufficiently novel and the appellants were entitled to costs after successfully defending against a serious contempt allegation.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted under the simplified procedure rule.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge understood and properly applied the correct test for summary judgment.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant estate appealed a trial judgment finding that the owner of a motor vehicle was not vicariously liable for a fatal accident.

The plaintiff, who had the owner's consent to possess the vehicle, fell asleep in the passenger seat.

The deceased driver, who did not have a license or the owner's consent, took control of the vehicle and crashed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the plaintiff was not in possession of the vehicle at the time of the accident, as the driver had taken possession without consent.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered on a Canadian Forces base.

The defendants successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the action was statute-barred by the six-month limitation period in s. 269(1) of the National Defence Act.

The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the discoverability principle applied because the injured plaintiff had received erroneous advice from the Canadian Forces and his Pensions Advocate that he could not sue while his military pension claim was pending.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the uncontradicted evidence of this erroneous advice raised a genuine issue for trial regarding the commencement of the limitation period.

The appellants appealed the judgment of Justice C.S. Glithero.

The Court of Appeal found no merit to the appeal, agreeing with the analysis and conclusion of the lower court judge.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $6,200.

The Court of Appeal released an addendum on costs following an appeal.

The court found that costs should be awarded on a partial indemnity basis, but determined that the amounts sought by the respondents were excessive.

Costs were fixed at $17,500 for the main group of respondents and $10,000 for the respondent Hemming.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing its claim of conspiracy.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's conclusion was available on the record despite gaps and contradictions in the evidence.

The Court declined to entertain new arguments regarding the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and the Assignment and Preferences Act, as they were raised for the first time on appeal and lacked the trial judge's review.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicants brought a motion for directions and requested an extension of time to deliver their factum on the cross-appeals.

Following the initial reasons, the parties reached an agreement.

On consent, the court ordered the cross-appeals to be scheduled for hearing on June 16, 2003, and extended the time for the applicants to deliver their factum.

The moving parties brought a motion to quash appeals from a trial judgment in an estate matter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the grounds alleging contempt and out-of-time filing, noting the time to appeal ran from the date the formal judgment was entered.

The Court directed that the estate appellant must retain a solicitor pursuant to Rule 15.01(1), and ordered that a self-represented appellant's appeal regarding costs would be quashed if he failed to obtain the required leave to appeal.

The plaintiff was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident in Ontario and later moved to Alberta, where she received further hospital care.

Alberta Health asserted a subrogated claim for the cost of her hospital expenses in Alberta.

The Court of Appeal held that while Alberta Health had a valid subrogated right under the Alberta Hospitals Act, the claim was barred by section 267(1)(b) of the Ontario Insurance Act, which prevents a plaintiff from recovering damages for payments received under a hospitalization plan.

Because the plaintiff's claim was barred, Alberta Health's derivative subrogated claim was also barred.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought to recover deposit monies on the basis that they were impressed with a trust if the underlying transaction failed to close.

The court held that the appellant met neither branch of the Quistclose requirements because the monies were advanced and used as a deposit for their intended purpose.

The respondents also had no notice at the time the monies were provided that any trust obligation attached to them.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.