Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

The appellants, registered owners of an Oakville property, sought to extend the time to appeal and stay a summary judgment order granting the respondent mortgage lender possession of the property.

The appellants had defaulted on their mortgage obligations and were facing eviction.

They claimed they did not understand the mortgage documents and were manipulated into signing them, and that the electronically signed documents were invalid.

The motion judge found no evidence of fraud or unconscionable conduct and granted summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the motion to extend time and the motion to stay, finding no serious grounds of appeal and insufficient evidence of irreparable harm.

The court noted that loss of a home due to mortgage default does not automatically constitute irreparable harm, particularly where the parties agreed to the mortgage terms.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of Herbert and Jacqueline Watkins, setting aside the order dismissing their action and the associated costs order.

The motion judge had dismissed the action for failure to appoint counsel or deliver a notice of intent to act in person under r. 15.04(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and for delay under r. 24.01.

The Court of Appeal found that the removal order for the appellants' counsel was not effective, as it was not properly served, and that the motion judge erred in relying on r. 15.04(8).

The finding of inordinate and inexcusable delay was also found to be unreasonable due to confusion over representation.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the appellants.

The appellant wife appealed an 11-day trial decision concerning equalization, child, and spousal support, alleging several errors in law by the trial judge.

The alleged errors included the gross-up rate for taxes, deduction of a renovation loan from business value, calculation of franchise value, and the calculation of the wife's income (specifically regarding CERB payments).

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the trial judge's determinations, affirming that the trial judge's findings were open to her based on the evidence presented, including expert evidence.

The court also dismissed minor alleged errors as insignificant or previously corrected.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Dag Hrvoic appealed a trial judgment that found equal shareholdings between him and Melissa Hrvoic in a co-founded company and ordered him to purchase Melissa's shares.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's findings on the shareholding agreement, company valuation, the application of the "clean hands" doctrine, and the commencement of the limitation period for Melissa's claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, affirming the trial judge's factual findings and legal conclusions, including the existence of an agreement for equal shareholdings and the proper application of the Limitations Act.

This appeal concerned the correct approach to defamation and civil conspiracy pleadings in the context of a motion to strike.

The Divisional Court had struck out the defendant's counterclaim, finding it lacked particularity.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Divisional Court misapplied the modern, flexible approach to pleadings and failed to read the pleadings generously.

The Court of Appeal reinstated the motion judge's decision, which had dismissed the motion to strike, emphasizing the high bar for striking pleadings and the deference owed to motion judges.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to serve and file a notice of cross-appeal.

The responding party opposed the motion, raising concerns about delay.

The court found that extending the time with appropriate directions would not delay the scheduling and hearing of the appeal.

The motion was granted, and the moving party was ordered to serve and file its notice of cross-appeal by a specified date.

A trucking company sought declaratory relief from its insurer regarding coverage for stolen cargo in the absence of an underlying claim from the customer.

The insurer denied coverage citing misrepresentation regarding cargo type and lack of custody.

The application judge made declarations of fact addressing the insurer's two grounds for denial but declined to declare an obligation to indemnify.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that declaratory relief was improper in the absence of a real dispute and that the application judge erred by making findings of fact detached from rights of the parties.

The court ordered consolidation of the application with the subsequent action commenced by the trucking company.

On appeal from a Superior Court order, the Court of Appeal addressed competing costs claims arising from a legal fee assessment and subsequent application.

The appellants sought to set aside costs awards totalling $56,535.29 granted to the respondent, arguing that the appellants' $10,000 costs award on the successful appeal disposed of all costs in the proceedings.

The respondent maintained entitlement to both awards based on her substantial success in reducing the appellants' original account from $187,044.40 to $100,000.

The Court of Appeal found the respondent achieved substantial success warranting appropriate costs awards, but modified the amounts to reflect the nature and extent of success at each stage.

An appeal from a Superior Court order that set aside an Assessment Officer's Report and Certificate reducing a solicitor's account from $149,635.52 to $26,375.00.

The solicitor had billed for services related to a $14 million real estate transaction without maintaining proper time dockets or obtaining client authorization before withdrawing fees from the client's trust account.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in finding bias against the Assessment Officer and in failing to apply the proper quantum meruit analysis.

The Court reassessed the account at $100,000, holding that while the solicitor's record-keeping deficiencies warranted a significant reduction, the application judge's mechanical hourly rate calculation failed to account for the complexity, importance, and successful outcome of the transaction.

The appellant sought an appeal of an order dismissing its application on the grounds of mootness.

The original application sought mandatory orders and an injunction to access certain data controlled by the respondent.

The parties reached a consent order permitting access to the data on the condition that the appellant pay outstanding fees to the respondent's lawyers on a without admission of liability basis.

When the appellant failed to make the payment by the stipulated date, the respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application, which the application judge granted on mootness grounds.

The appellant argued that the payment requirement was optional and that it should have been given a further opportunity to pay before dismissal.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision requiring him to return a $50,000 deposit to the respondent in a real estate transaction.

The respondent had refused to close the purchase after discovering a second TransCanada Pipeline easement running under the pool, cabana, and patio that had not been disclosed in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale, along with undisclosed litigation between the appellant and the pipeline company.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding that the appellant breached the APS by failing to convey title free from undisclosed restrictions and by attempting to require the respondent to sign an agreement the appellant had contracted to execute.

The appellants, judgment creditors of the respondent McCallum from a defamation action, sought a stay pending their appeal of a motion judge's decision dismissing their action under Rule 21.

The action sought to set aside a 1993 conveyance of McCallum's interest in the matrimonial home to his wife Boughner as a fraudulent conveyance under section 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The motion judge found the appellants lacked standing as "creditors or others" under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The appellants moved for a stay to prevent Boughner from disposing of the property pending appeal.

The motion was dismissed on the basis that there was no serious issue to be tried and no evidence of irreparable harm or balance of convenience favoring the stay.

The appellant doctor appealed a decision dismissing his summary judgment motion to dismiss the respondent's medical malpractice action as statute-barred.

The respondent suffered severe complications following breast reduction surgery, and the appellant continued to perform ameliorative surgeries for over a year.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that under s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002, the respondent did not know that a legal proceeding would be an appropriate means to seek a remedy until the ameliorative treatments concluded.

The appeal was dismissed.

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

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appeal, agreeing with the reasons of the motion judge.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000, and the certificate of stay was set aside.

The appellant insurer appealed an order determining insurance priorities in a tort action involving a rental car.

The Court of Appeal held that under the Ontario Insurance Act, as amended by Bill 118, the appellant's policy was required to respond first, regardless of whether the policies were limited to Ontario.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, acting in person, brought a motion to remove the solicitors of record for the respondents on the appeal, alleging conflict of interest and misconduct.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence to support the serious allegations.

The court emphasized the importance of a litigant's right to counsel of choice and noted that removing counsel would cause prejudice to the respondents, who relied on their counsel's ability to communicate in Farsi.

The appellants appealed a decision finding that an exchange of correspondence did not constitute a binding agreement of purchase and sale for the Guelph Storm.

They also appealed the application judge's decision to award substantial indemnity costs to the respondent on a merged contempt and enforcement application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the contract formation analysis, and upholding the costs award due to the appellants' prolonged delay and attempts to avoid their obligations.

The Minister of Health and Genpharm appealed a decision granting judicial review that quashed the extension of a cut-off date for generic drug submissions to the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary.

The application judge had found the process procedurally unfair and ordered a new cut-off date, resulting in all five competing generic drug companies having their products listed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals as moot, finding that the new Formulary had already been published, the legal landscape had changed, and Genpharm's proposed future action for damages did not justify hearing the appeal on the merits.

The appellant challenged a municipality's sale of surplus land, arguing the sale violated a procedural by-law because the required property appraisal was obtained after public notice and tenders were received.

The trial judge upheld the sale, finding the sequence of procedures did not matter as long as all took place.

The Court of Appeal agreed, dismissing the appeal.

The Court also dismissed the argument that the appraisal was flawed for excluding chattels, and granted the municipality's cross-appeal for mortgage interest up to the closing date.

The appellants appealed the trial judge's calculation of prejudgment interest on the respondent's past loss of income and the deduction of no-fault benefits following a jury verdict.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's determination that past loss of income began to accrue immediately following the accident, and upheld her treatment of the no-fault benefits deduction.

The appeal was dismissed.