Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

The Court of Appeal previously awarded Traders General Insurance Company its costs of a panel review motion and invited written submissions on quantum.

Traders sought partial indemnity costs of $24,158.71, while the responding parties argued for $7,500 due to duplication of work from the initial motion.

The Court agreed there was some duplication and fixed costs at $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellants appealed from an order of the application judge that determined the respondents had not substantially interfered with an easement in favour of the appellants, assuming the easement to be valid.

The Court of Appeal found the evidentiary record before the application judge was insufficient to support any conclusions on the issues.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the application judge's order, and remitted the matter to the Superior Court of Justice for a fresh hearing or trial.

The court identified numerous unresolved questions regarding the validity of the easement, including issues relating to the title history, the precise location and dimensions of the easement, compliance with part lot subdivision control provisions, and whether the respondents' actions constituted substantial interference with the easement rights.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs to the fully successful respondents on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $10,000 all inclusive, noting the overlap of issues with a companion appeal.

The appellant insurer appealed a decision finding that its directors and officers insurance policy provided coverage for defence costs incurred by the respondent in an OSC proceeding.

The respondent had previously given notice of potential claims to a prior insurer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that, viewed objectively, the parties intended the new policy to cover the prior acts referred to in the notice up to the first $5 million of the policy limits.

The court found that the insurer had waived the carve-out provisions in the application and that general exclusion clauses did not override the specific agreement for prior acts coverage.

The appeal and cross-appeal on costs were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing its claim for breach of contract.

The appellant argued that a preliminary contract was formed when it submitted a proposal, or alternatively, that an oral contract was formed during a phone call.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual conclusions that a purchase order was required to form a contract and that the phone call did not constitute offer and acceptance.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claims against a solicitor and other defendants, as well as the award of substantial indemnity costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility regarding the solicitor.

The court also rejected the claim against the other defendants, noting that any vendor's lien was extinguished when the bank exercised its security.

The award of substantial indemnity costs was upheld due to the appellant's attack on the respondent's character.

In an endorsement regarding costs for an appeal, cross-appeal, and related motions, the Court of Appeal found the bills of costs filed by both counsel to be exorbitant and unhelpful.

The court made a single award of costs, fixing them at $7,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST, payable to the respondent.

The corporate insured appealed a motion judge's finding that it was not covered by its automobile insurance policy because it permitted an employee to drive without a valid driver's licence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the insured, a small family-run business, had a system for checking mail and reasonably relied on the Ministry of Transportation to send a licence renewal notice.

Because the insured took reasonable steps to keep informed of the licence status, it did not 'permit' the employee to drive while unauthorized, and coverage was upheld.

The appellant, an exclusive supplier of jump ropes to the respondent Foundation for 19 years, sued for reasonable notice of termination after the Foundation ended the relationship.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the Foundation had grounds to terminate without notice due to the appellant's difficult behaviour, an overbearing report, and refusal to reduce inflated prices.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiffs sued Ontario in negligence, alleging the province failed to prevent the outbreak of West Nile Virus in 2002, resulting in the deceased contracting the virus and dying from complications.

Ontario moved to strike the statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The motions judge and Divisional Court dismissed the motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and struck the claim, holding that the Health Protection and Promotion Act imposes a general public law duty to protect health, but does not create a private law duty of care owed to specific individuals to prevent the spread of infectious diseases.

The plaintiffs brought an action against their property insurer and contractors after their home was destroyed by fire, including a subrogated claim on behalf of the Ontario Health Insurance Plan.

The Ministry withdrew its claim during the trial and did not participate.

The jury dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and assessed damages at zero.

The successful defendants sought to have the Ministry held jointly and severally liable for their costs, relying on s. 39(6) of Regulation 552 under the Health Insurance Act.

The trial judge refused to award costs against the Ministry.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants' appeal, holding that s. 39(6) does not apply where the Plan's claim has not been assessed, and the trial judge made no error in exercising her discretion under Rule 23.05.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her motion for security for costs, authorizing the respondent to control the conduct of the intended action, and awarding costs to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motions judge's refusal to order security for costs, noting the action was neither vexatious nor frivolous.

The court also upheld the costs award and found the order for directions was a sensible interlocutory order authorized by the Canadian Business Corporations Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding that the respondent's alleged breach of a confidentiality provision in minutes of settlement did not constitute a fundamental breach.

The appellant conceded there was no fundamental breach but sought a remedy analogous to Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 49.09 did not apply because the settlement was reached via minutes of settlement, not an offer to settle, and the rule does not alter substantive contract law.

However, the Court noted the motion judge erred in finding there was no breach at all, preserving the appellant's right to sue for damages for breach of contract.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay $3.8 million for breach of a real estate joint venture agreement.

The appellant argued the respondent was disentitled to the funds for trading in real estate without a license and sought disgorgement of a commission.

The respondent cross-appealed for punitive damages and a higher rate of prejudgment interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the respondent was exempt from licensing requirements as it was dealing with its own interest, the commission was properly disclosed, and the appellant's conduct did not meet the exceptional threshold required for punitive damages.

The appellant appealed an order striking their statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the plea of fraudulent misrepresentation was untenable, the factual allegations were capable of establishing an absence of good faith.

The court held that the novel cause of action in negligence was not plain and obvious to fail, and permitted it to proceed.

The appellant appealed an order of the lower court judge, who had dismissed their initial appeal for abuse of process due to undue delay in prosecution.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the lower court judge's conclusion and dismissed the appeal.

The respondent was awarded costs of $5,000.

A motion for leave to cross-appeal to add a party to the lower court's order was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order staying her Ontario action.

On appeal, she raised a new issue regarding whether her claim against the respondents was barred by Quebec limitation periods, which would affect the juridical advantage analysis.

Because there was no evidentiary record on this issue, the Court of Appeal amended the lower court's order to provide for a conditional stay of the Ontario action pending the final determination of the limitation period question under Quebec law.

The appellant insurance company appealed an order refusing to bifurcate the trial of the plaintiffs' action on an insurance contract and for bad faith punitive damages.

The appellant argued bifurcation was necessary to protect it from disclosing privileged communications in the bad faith claim that could prejudice the contract claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Divisional Court that there was no evidence the appellant would actually suffer the alleged prejudice, but left open the possibility of a further motion on appropriate evidence.

The appellants agreed to purchase a property, but the transaction failed to close after the respondent registered a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against title, claiming a right of first refusal.

A motion to discharge the CPL was dismissed on the basis that there was a triable issue.

The appellants subsequently sued the respondent for damages under s. 103(4) of the Courts of Justice Act for registering the CPL without a reasonable claim.

The trial judge dismissed the action, holding that the previous order refusing to discharge the CPL was a decision in rem and rendered the issue res judicata.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that a motion to discharge a CPL only determines whether there is a triable issue, not the ultimate merits of the claim, and therefore cannot support a plea of res judicata.

The appellant builder appealed a trial judgment that allowed the respondent purchasers to refuse to close a real estate transaction and recover their $20,000 deposit.

The trial judge found that changing the location of the attached garage from the side to the front of the house was a fundamental change, and that the builder failed to clearly convey this change to the purchasers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions.