Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

The appellant challenged summary judgment dismissing his claim.

The court rejected both appellate arguments, upheld the motion judge’s credibility and documentary-evidence assessments, and found no palpable and overriding error.

On a motion to quash, the court considered whether an appeal from dismissal of a contempt motion was interlocutory.

Applying established principles, it held the order was interlocutory because underlying proceedings remained ongoing and other procedural avenues were available.

The appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed an order finding him in contempt and dismissing his action for persistently refusing to attend court-ordered medical examinations in Toronto.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by not treating contempt as a last resort and by failing to accept his legitimate excuse for non-compliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision to find the appellant in contempt and to dismiss the action, emphasizing the appellant's deliberate non-compliance and the futility of further opportunities to comply.

This is an appeal from summary judgment dismissing the appellant’s action claiming damages for malicious prosecution.

The underlying criminal prosecution rested on allegations that the appellant fraudulently received social assistance.

The appellant raised several grounds of appeal, including errors regarding partial summary judgment, the determinative nature of prior judicial determinations on reasonable cause, sufficiency of reasons, and failure to infer malice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the motion judge's approach and upholding the dismissal of the malicious prosecution claim.

This decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario addresses three related matters.

The first involved an appeal in Blanchard v. Georgina (Town), where the panel considered a motion to review a security for costs order and an ex parte motion by the Town of Georgina to dismiss the appeal for non-payment of security.

The second matter concerned a proposed appeal in Grand Chief v. Phillips et al, specifically a review of an order denying an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

The third matter was a general review of a prior order by Thorburn J.A. The court dismissed the request for an adjournment and allowed a non-lawyer spokesperson to represent one of the parties.

The court found no basis to stay or consolidate the appeals based on aboriginal land claims.

The Georgina appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with the security for costs order, and the review of the denial of extension of time for the Grand Chief v. Phillips appeal was also dismissed, with costs awarded against the unsuccessful parties in both instances.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed a summary judgment decision that found it liable for negligence in failing to keep an inmate reasonably safe while housed at Millhaven Institution, a maximum security penitentiary.

The inmate was assaulted by three other inmates in his cell during a prison strike.

The motion judge granted summary judgment on liability, finding the Crown negligent in its placement of the inmate, failure to maintain surveillance, failure to respond to cell alarms, and failure to prevent cell access.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge exceeded his authority by making unjustified findings of fact on an inadequate evidentiary record and applying an incorrect legal standard for causation.

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge who refused leave to amend their statement of defence and counterclaim by striking certain defences and counterclaims.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge failed to provide explicit reasons for denying leave to amend and that leave should only be denied in the clearest of cases.

The court allowed the appeal and varied the order to grant leave to amend.

The appellants were successful on the appeal, cross-appeal, and a motion to admit fresh evidence.

The respondent sought costs despite his lack of success, relying on an indemnity provision in a share purchase agreement triggered 'in the event of default'.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, holding that the provision could not be used to indemnify the respondent for unsuccessful appellate proceedings.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the appellants on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $20,000.

The plaintiff sued his former employer and a disability insurer for long-term disability benefits after suffering a stroke shortly after his termination.

In his reply to the employer's statement of defence, the plaintiff claimed wrongful dismissal.

The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing the reply raised a new, statute-barred cause of action.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the statement of claim's factual matrix provided sufficient notice of the wrongful dismissal claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's appeal, agreeing that the wrongful dismissal claim was not a new cause of action and came as no surprise to the employer.

The plaintiffs brought a motion asking the Court of Appeal to reconsider its refusal to grant leave to appeal, arguing that a subsequent decision by the court changed the interpretation of Rule 53.03.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction under Rule 61.16(6.1) because a change in jurisprudence does not constitute a 'fact arising or discovered after' an order is made under Rule 59.06(2)(a).

The court further noted that even if it had jurisdiction, it would not exercise its discretion to reconsider the decision, and declined to extend the time for seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment ordering the release of a statutory holdback to the respondent subcontractor.

The appellants argued the respondent failed to provide required close-out documentation, including as-built drawings and an engineering certificate, and that the matter should have proceeded to trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge properly applied the summary judgment standard and correctly concluded the required documents had been provided.

The court ordered the immediate payout of the holdback funds and dismissed a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

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

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on consent and awarded costs of $4,000 to each respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement regarding the costs of an appeal.

The court awarded the respondents costs in the total amount of $60,000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes, to be divided $35,000 to the respondent corporation and $25,000 to the individual respondents.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement based on a consent filed by the parties.

The respondent was ordered to pay trial costs of $97,000 to one appellant, and $250,000 plus GST and disbursements to the other appellants.

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of claim for slander and libel under Rule 21.

The slander claim was struck because it failed to allege the words were spoken to anyone other than the plaintiff.

The libel claim, based on a letter from the respondents' solicitors, was struck because it failed to specify the exact words complained of and was protected by absolute privilege as it was sent in contemplation of litigation.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the motion judge striking out his statement of claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents in the amount of $1,799.10.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment, arguing the motion judge erred by not ordering a trial on the issue of a set-off for capital gains tax and liability for recapture.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that because there was only a potential future liability for capital gains tax and recapture, there were no existing claims capable of giving rise to a set-off.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the appellants bringing future claims or seeking a stay of enforcement under Rule 20.08 if such claims materialize.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellants, Ontario residents, appealed a decision staying their action against a New Orleans restaurant owner for a slip and fall injury sustained while vacationing in Louisiana.

The motion judge found that the Ontario Superior Court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, applying the real and substantial connection test and finding that requiring a foreign restaurant owner to defend in the customer's home jurisdiction would impose an unreasonable burden.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its claim regarding a commercial lease.

The appellant argued that a lease was assigned to it or that an oral agreement for a five-year lease was reached.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's finding that there was no valid assignment in writing as required, and that the evidence did not support an oral agreement.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed three findings of contempt made by the lower court.

The Court of Appeal set aside all three findings.

The first finding had already been adjudicated by another judge.

The second finding could not stand due to a lack of clarity in a Divisional Court order and the appellants' reliance on counsel's advice.

The third finding could not stand due to conflicting evidence regarding the reason for non-attendance.

The appeal was allowed and the findings of contempt were set aside, though the respondent was awarded costs due to the appellants' conduct.