Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

The appellants' action was administratively dismissed for delay after their solicitors failed to receive a status notice sent to the wrong address.

The motion judge refused to set aside the dismissal, finding the appellants failed to adequately explain the delay or prove a lack of prejudice to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the action, holding that the motion judge failed to give sufficient weight to the non-receipt of the status notice and erred in his assessment of prejudice by ignoring the respondent's own passivity in the litigation.

The respondents' property was damaged by an oil spill after a tenant bypassed the furnace thermostat, causing it to overheat and overflow.

The appellant insurer denied coverage, relying on pollution and mechanical breakdown exclusions, and later argued the respondents failed to file a proof of loss.

The trial judge found for the respondents, concluding the insurer waived the proof of loss requirement and that neither exclusion applied.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal, upholding the findings that the adjuster's letter constituted a waiver, the mechanical breakdown was caused by external interference rather than an internal defect, and the pollution exclusion required another operative exclusion to apply.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action by the motion judge.

The motion judge had dismissed the action because the appellant failed to pay security for costs into court as required by a previous order.

The Court of Appeal found a proper basis for the motion judge's conclusion and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent due to unfounded public allegations against respondent's counsel.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for a declaration that $70,000 advanced to her daughter and the respondent was a loan, not a gift.

During the application hearing, the judge made several comments indicating he would have difficulty making an adverse credibility finding against the respondent because he was a police officer.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge's comments created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court set aside the judgment and ordered a trial of the issues due to the conflicting evidence.

The appellant, an Ontario mining company, sued American engineering consultants for negligent misrepresentation regarding studies for a Costa Rican gold mine.

The defendants successfully moved to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the tort of negligent misrepresentation was committed in Ontario, as the studies were received and relied upon at the appellant's Toronto head office.

This established a presumptive real and substantial connection that the defendants failed to rebut.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to determine forum non conveniens.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to set aside a default judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence, including video recordings, that the appellants were personally served and consciously decided to ignore the process.

The Court noted that a conscious decision not to participate bars consideration of a defence on the merits.

The parties sought costs following an appeal where the appellant's appeal on the merits was dismissed, but her appeal on costs was allowed.

The respondent sought full or substantial indemnity costs for the appeal on the merits, arguing the appeal was a continuation of a meritless will challenge.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding the appeal raised a narrow question of law, and awarded the respondent partial indemnity costs of $32,866.

The appellant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $9,273.30 for her success on the costs appeal.

The amounts were set off, resulting in a net payment of $23,592.70 to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a judgment dismissing his application to assess two legal accounts from the respondent, delivered in 1999 and 2008.

The appellant also moved to introduce fresh evidence to seek a new assessment hearing for all accounts.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's reasons, noting a 2001 consent agreement covering the 1999 account and a lack of special circumstances for the 2008 account.

The motion to introduce fresh evidence was denied, as the appellant only sought assessment after deciding his wife's legal bills were too high.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal on the basis that the order appealed from was interlocutory.

The motion judge had ordered the self-represented plaintiff to appoint a litigation guardian and counsel, failing which the defendants could move ex parte to strike her pleadings.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was procedural and did not finally resolve the substantive issues in the litigation.

The motion to quash was granted, as the order was interlocutory, without prejudice to the appellant's ability to seek leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The appellant, a lawyer, retained the respondent law firm to assist her at a trial.

The respondent's initial estimate of costs was $50,000, but the final accounts exceeded $150,000.

The assessment officer found the accounts reasonable, noting the work was done at the appellant's behest, and the Superior Court dismissed the appellant's appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the further appeal, finding no error in principle in the assessment officer's conclusion that the accounts were reasonable given the circumstances.

The landlord terminated a commercial head lease and locked out the tenant, which prevented the subtenant from using the exterior wall for advertising.

The subtenant sued the landlord for the tort of intentional interference with contractual relations and economic interests.

The trial judge found the landlord liable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that the trial judge erred in equating the foreseeability of harm to the subtenant with an intention to injure.

The evidence did not establish that the landlord knew of the subtenant or intended to harm it when the decision to terminate the head lease was made.

The Court of Appeal previously allowed the defendant's appeal, reducing the plaintiff's damages for breach of contract from $1,935,500 to nominal damages of $1 due to a failure to mitigate.

In this costs endorsement, the court applied the cost consequences of Rule 49.10(2) because the plaintiff obtained a judgment less favourable than the defendant's pre-trial offer to settle for $100,000.

The defendant was awarded net partial indemnity costs of $400,000.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $8,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellants appealed a decision finding that their section 7 notice was insufficient to alert the Crown to a claim of vicarious liability for persons acting under the authority of the Coroner's Office.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Master that the Crown should not be left to guess its possible liability, in accordance with the principles in Mattick Estate.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice regarding vicarious liability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the issue did not need to be decided in light of the court's disposition in a companion case (C50105).

Costs were also addressed in the companion case.

The plaintiff was injured in two separate motor vehicle accidents and brought actions against both drivers.

The trial judge struck the jury due to the complexity of the plaintiff's medical history and found the plaintiff 100% liable for the first accident, but the defendant Hayik 100% liable for the second.

The trial judge awarded damages and made a Sanderson order requiring Hayik to pay the successful first defendant's costs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decisions on striking the jury, liability, and damages, but set aside the Sanderson order, finding that the two actions were independent and the plaintiff had the ability to pay the costs of the unsuccessful action.

The appellants, owners and patrons of adult entertainment parlours, challenged the constitutional validity of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act and sought damages under private law causes of action.

The motion judge struck most of the claims but allowed the division of powers claim to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the striking of the private law and Charter claims.

On cross-appeal, the Court held that the division of powers claim should also have been struck, as it is plain and obvious that the pith and substance of the Act is to promote health, which falls within provincial jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of two actions brought against the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and various doctors performing review functions.

The motion judge had dismissed the actions based on the confidentiality and immunity from suit provisions in the Regulated Health Professions Act, as well as the doctrine of res judicata.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the appeal, upheld the motion judge's analysis, and dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $5,000.

The appellant appealed an order regarding her interest in a property located on Roncesvalles Avenue.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that any interest the appellant had was compromised in minutes of settlement in July 2002, which resulted in a court order transferring the property to the respondents.

As no appeal was taken from that prior order, the appellant had no claim to an accounting of the proceeds of the sale.

The appellant appealed an order that struck her claim based on issue estoppel arising from a prior solicitor's assessment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the assessment officer made no finding on the question of negligence, either explicitly or implicitly.

Therefore, issue estoppel did not preclude the appellant from alleging negligence or breach of contract in her subsequent action against the respondent solicitor.

The respondent's motion was dismissed, except for the portion seeking to strike the jury notice, which was remitted to the Superior Court on consent.