Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

The appellant insurer denied third-party liability coverage to the owner of an ATV after his son, who held only a G1 licence, was involved in a serious accident while driving the ATV on a highway.

The motion judge found that the owner had only permitted his son to drive on a specific lane he mistakenly believed was not a highway, and did not permit him to drive on the highway where the accident occurred.

The motion judge concluded the owner was not in breach of Statutory Condition 4(1) at the time of the incident, and alternatively granted relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings regarding the scope of permission granted, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, a former head of the respondent union, was expelled from membership following an arbitration.

The respondent successfully applied to the Superior Court to enforce the arbitrator's awards.

The appellant attempted to appeal to the Divisional Court, which found the appeal frivolous and vexatious, and then appealed to the Court of Appeal seeking to set aside the awards, lay criminal charges, and claim $1 million in damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the proceeding under Rule 2.1.01(1) as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the appellant sought relief the court could not grant and failed to meaningfully respond to the court's request for submissions.

The appellant insurer appealed the dismissal of its summary judgment motion regarding uninsured automobile coverage.

The respondent argued the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction because the order was interlocutory, not final.

The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that unless a motion judge explicitly invokes Rule 20.04(4) to make a binding determination of law, an order dismissing summary judgment is presumed interlocutory.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granting the respondent over $2.2 million for unpaid commercial leases of forestry equipment.

The appellants argued the respondent was not the proper assignee, disputed the amount owing, and claimed equipment malfunctions excused payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the respondent was the assignee, the debt calculation was correct, and broad exclusion clauses in the leases precluded the equipment malfunction defence.

The court also quashed the respondent's cross-appeal regarding a stay of execution for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment in a slip and fall action.

The appellants claimed they only learned of the action when enforcement proceedings began, 12 years after the incident.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellants had evaded service, failed to act promptly, lacked a plausible explanation for their delay, and presented a defence of dubious merit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sued an employment agency after paying a fee for a promised job that never materialized.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the respondents credible.

After the initial appeal was dismissed, a television program broadcast an undercover investigation exposing the respondents' deceptive practices.

The appellant moved to re-open the trial to adduce this fresh evidence, but the motion judge dismissed the request.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge's reasons inadequate and holding that the fresh evidence met the test for re-opening the trial as it was cogent, previously unavailable, and could have affected the trial's outcome.

The appellant sued its former lawyer for negligence after he failed to appeal a bankruptcy trustee's disallowance of its secured claim.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding the bankrupt had no rights in the disputed funds, meaning the appellant's security interest never attached and it suffered no damages.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge erred and raised a new 'loss of chance' argument.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings on attachment and refusing to entertain the new loss of chance argument due to unfairness and lack of evidentiary foundation.

The tenant appellants appealed a motion judge's refusal to set aside a default judgment obtained by the landlord respondent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision because the appellants failed to provide affidavit evidence explaining their delay in responding to the Statement of Claim or establishing a plausible defence.

The court noted the respondent's undertaking to credit the appellants for any re-rental amounts received and directed that the final judgment be adjusted accordingly.

The purchaser appealed a trial decision finding that open web steel joists were not part of the structural steel included in an agreement of purchase and sale for a commercial property.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by relying on extraneous documents to interpret the agreement.

The Amending Agreement and the documents specifically referenced within it, including the purchase order and structural drawings, clearly included open web steel joists.

As the vendor failed to provide the joists, they breached the agreement, and the funds held in trust were ordered returned to the purchaser.

Invesco sought leave to appeal orders sanctioning a Plan of Compromise and Reorganization under the CCAA and approving a settlement that released Ernst & Young LLP from claims arising from its auditing of Sino-Forest Corporation.

The Court of Appeal denied leave, finding that the proposed appeals failed to meet the stringent test for leave in CCAA proceedings.

The appeal of the Sanction Order was moot, and the issues regarding the third-party release in the Settlement Order were governed by the court's prior decision in ATB Financial.

The appellant, a federal government employee, successfully appealed her income tax reassessment and subsequently sued the federal government for abuse of power and misfeasance in public office.

The respondent successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred because the appellant knew the material facts underlying her tort claims years earlier.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the appellant was entitled to seek a determination that her tax reassessment was invalid before commencing her tort action, as proving the reassessment's invalidity was a necessary element of her misfeasance claim.

The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment was set aside.

The trustee in bankruptcy suspected the bankrupt was hiding assets using a third party.

The trustee sought an order compelling the bankrupt and his lawyer to disclose the identity of the person paying the bankrupt's legal fees for a previous motion.

The motion judge granted the order, finding the information was not privileged.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that administrative information relating to the solicitor-client relationship, including the identity of the person paying the lawyer's bills, is presumptively privileged.

The court found the presumption was not rebutted because the information was relevant to the merits of the underlying dispute and its disclosure would reveal confidential communications.

The appellants appealed a decision restraining them from objecting to an application to extract aggregate from a property.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the individual appellant used the appellant corporation as his agent to breach his personal covenant not to object to the extraction.

The substantive appeal was dismissed.

However, the court allowed the appeal on costs, reducing the lower court's costs award from substantial indemnity to partial indemnity, as the relative merits of the case did not justify the higher scale.

The appellant, manager of an income trust, appealed a decision regarding the interpretation of the trust's declaration of trust.

The dispute centered on the method and date for calculating the 'Net Realized Proceeds per Unit' for units redeemed by the respondents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the valuation date was the correct date for determining the redemption price under both calculation methods provided in the declaration of trust.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The individual appellant's appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The corporate appellant's appeal was adjourned to allow for perfection, as the failure to perfect over fifteen months appeared to be due to miscommunication between lawyers and no prejudice was identified.

The adjournment was granted on strict terms, including the payment of $1,500 in costs thrown away to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision striking his statement of claim and dismissing his action against the Crown and College respondents.

The appellant had asserted claims based in negligence, malice, misfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches relating to the suspension of his OHIP payments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the pleadings were seriously deficient, failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and that certain claims were res judicata.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding a construction dispute, challenging the trial judge's assessment of a quantum meruit claim, the failure to award damages for delay, and the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's assessment of reasonable labour and findings regarding delay were supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.

The court also declined to interfere with the discretionary costs award, fixing costs of the appeal at $15,000.

The plaintiffs contracted with the defendant moving company to move and store their household goods.

The defendant assured the plaintiffs that their goods would be secure in a locked trailer on the defendant's lot.

However, the trailer was left unattended on a public street overnight and was stolen.

The defendant admitted liability but sought to rely on a limitation of liability clause limiting damages to $0.60 per pound.

The trial judge found the clause unenforceable.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding that enforcing the limitation clause would be unconscionable given the false assurances of security.

The appeal was allowed only to set aside damages awarded to the plaintiffs' corporations.

The appellant challenged a judgment in an insurance benefits dispute concerning whether a proposed rehabilitation expenditure was a reasonable expense.

The court accepted that a significant-benefit threshold would be erroneous, but interpreted the trial reasons as finding only that the evidence showed no more than an insignificant benefit in the circumstances.

It held that the trial judge was entitled on the record to conclude the proposed expenditure was not a reasonable expense.

Leave to appeal costs was granted, and the trial costs order was varied so that there would be no order as to costs of the trial; the appeal was otherwise dismissed without costs.

The appellant challenged the dismissal of a medical negligence action arising from a surgical procedure and alleged lack of informed consent.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to accept the defence expert evidence that the surgery was not negligently performed, particularly where there was no effective cross-examination on the factual assumptions and no contrary expert evidence.

The court further held that there was evidence supporting disclosure of the material risk of permanent change in sensation, and no evidence that other asserted risks required disclosure.

Applying the modified objective test, the court upheld the finding that the appellant would have proceeded with the surgery in any event.