Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following its dismissal of a motion by a law firm seeking a charging order or lien against damages and costs awarded to its client.

The law firm sought no costs or alternatively $2,500, arguing the issue was novel and of public importance.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs of $25,214.42, arguing the motion lacked merit and was an attempt to burden him with additional costs.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the law firm's arguments and refusing to permit set-off against legal fees owed by the respondent.

The law firm sought reconsideration of the court's decision on its motion for a charging order or solicitor's lien.

The court denied the request for reconsideration, noting that the law firm had already addressed the merits of obtaining a charging order in its written submissions and that the test for a charging order and solicitor's lien is the same.

A law firm sought a charging order or solicitor's lien on funds awarded to its client in a successful civil action.

The client had recovered $390,000 in damages and $550,000 in costs at trial, with an additional $50,000 in costs awarded on appeal.

The law firm claimed $360,836.88 in unpaid fees and sought to secure this amount through either a charging order under the Solicitors Act or a lien under the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The client contested the amount owed and initiated an assessment process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that while it had jurisdiction to grant such relief, the law firm failed to establish that the client was unable or unwilling to pay.

A secondary market misrepresentation class action was brought against a coal mining company and its former CFOs and directors following the company's restatement of financial statements for 2010-2012.

The motion judge granted leave to proceed against the company but denied leave against the individual defendants, finding they had established a reasonable investigation defence.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the motion judge erred by treating the leave motion as a mini-trial and failing to consider significant credibility issues and gaps in the evidentiary record.

The court found that the defendants' position—that they should evade liability because they previously made material misrepresentations in the restatement but are now telling the truth—was inconsistent with fundamental securities regulation principles requiring scrupulous continuous disclosure.

The appellant appealed from a motion judge's order enforcing a settlement agreement between the appellant and the Ontario respondents arising from the appellant's suspension from the Knights of Columbus.

The appellant argued that only an agreement in principle existed and that it was not finalized by the April 22, 2016 deadline.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that a binding settlement agreement had been reached, noting that the essential terms had been agreed upon, settlement funds had been provided, and the release form had been executed by some respondents before the appellant attempted to terminate the agreement.

In this family law appeal, the father sought an extension of time to perfect his appeal from a trial judgment concerning custody, access, equalization, and child support.

The mother sought security for costs for both the appeal and unsecured trial costs.

The court granted the father's motion for an extension of time and dismissed the mother's motion for security for costs, finding that neither criterion under Rule 61.06(1)(a) was satisfied.

The father was awarded costs of $1,000 for the extension motion and $2,000 for the security for costs motion.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment ordering the return of a $2,000,000 deposit to the respondent purchaser after a failed commercial real estate transaction.

The dispute centered on whether the respondent fulfilled its contractual obligation to apply in good faith to assume existing mortgages before rejecting the terms offered.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's interpretation of the contract and his conclusion that a formal application would have been an exercise in futility.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside a noting in default and default judgment.

The motion judge found that while the appellant had a triable defence, he failed to move expeditiously, waiting 28 months after the noting in default to proceed with the motion.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding ample evidence to support the conclusion on delay and confirming that the motion judge properly considered the prejudice to the parties and the appellant's litigation conduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued her insurer for caregiver benefits and extra-contractual damages.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding it was statute-barred because it was commenced more than two years after the insurer's clear refusal to pay benefits.

The trial judge also found the appellant failed to establish entitlement to caregiver benefits beyond the 104-week period and dismissed her claims for bad faith and mental distress.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, including his evidentiary ruling that medical reports in a document brief not referred to by witnesses were inadmissible for the truth of their contents.

In a business dispute arising from a hotel development venture, the appellant challenged summary judgment dismissing all personal claims against an individual corporate principal while related claims against the corporation continued.

The Court of Appeal held that, under the post-Hryniak summary judgment framework, it was in the interest of justice to finally determine the individual's personal liability and that appellate deference was owed absent material error.

The court found that any factual errors by the motion judge were immaterial, upheld the conclusion that there was no evidence of a personal fiduciary duty, and agreed that the letter of intent was not shown to be a trust asset.

On the findings, the individual acted in good faith and in the corporation's best interests, so the personal tort claims failed and the fresh evidence motion was also dismissed.

The appellant sought an interim injunction in the Superior Court of Justice to prevent the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) from collecting unpaid taxes, interest, and penalties pending a breach of contract claim.

The motion judge struck the claim, finding the Federal Court had exclusive jurisdiction under s. 18(1) of the Federal Courts Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that s. 18(1) applies to all injunctions, including interim ones, and that the CRA is a federal board, commission, or other tribunal when exercising tax collection powers.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's careful and clear analysis of the issues.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $2,500.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claims for oppression, breach of good faith, and misrepresentation regarding the cost base of certain shares.

The appellants alleged they were not informed that shares were acquired on a tax-deferred basis.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the cost base was specifically listed in the circular, which the individual appellant had approved as a director and CFO.

The appeal was dismissed as entirely without merit, with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant's claim for long-term disability benefits was denied in 1995.

She commenced an action in 2006, which was dismissed on summary judgment for being outside the two-year limitation period prescribed by her employee benefit plan.

On appeal, the appellant argued the term 'covered event' was ambiguous and that a rolling limitation period should apply.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the term 'covered event' was clear in context and occurred only once or twice, not monthly, precluding a rolling limitation period.

The appellant defaulted on a loan from a business associate, who subsequently assigned the debt to the respondent.

The respondent successfully sued the appellant for the balance of the loan.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the loan agreement was unenforceable due to the law against champerty and maintenance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the assignment of a debt is not a champertous transaction and is valid under section 53 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision to vary a consent stay order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge had the power to vary the order under Rule 59.06 due to changed circumstances.

The court upheld the finding that the appellants acted in bad faith during the arbitration and mediation process, precluding them from relying on the procedural protections of those provisions.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a trial decision regarding the conversion of a commercial building into a residential condominium.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent Lomico was a 'declarant' under the Condominium Act, that a lease of HVAC equipment to the condominium corporation was null and void because the equipment formed part of the common elements, and that the developers breached the construction warranty by failing to substantially renovate the parking garage.

The Court dismissed the developers' cross-appeal, affirming that unit owners have an appurtenant property right to lease parking spaces at market rates.

Damages and market rates were directed to a reference.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application.

The respondent conceded that there were no issues of res judicata or issue estoppel arising from the lower court's decision.

The Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellants were pursuing similar claims in a separate action and there was no basis to continue both proceedings.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed an order granting the respondent relief from forfeiture of a 10% interest in a land development project.

The respondent had acquired the interest from her former common-law husband through a matrimonial order, subject to the appellants' security interest for a loan.

After the husband defaulted, the respondent tendered full payment of the loan shortly after the deadline.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the respondent met the three-part test for relief from forfeiture, noting her conduct was reasonable and there was a substantial disparity between the value of the forfeited property and the damage caused by the breach.

The City of Kingston moved for leave to intervene in an appeal between the City of Sudbury and Union Gas Limited regarding the interpretation of a franchise agreement and the jurisdiction of the Ontario Energy Board under s. 10 of the Municipal Franchises Act.

Kingston argued there was a common question of law with its own pending appeal involving Union Gas.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the factual and legal contexts of the two proceedings were significantly different and that the disadvantages of permitting the intervention outweighed the advantages.