Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

The appellants appealed a jury verdict dismissing their action against the respondent.

They argued the trial judge erred in the jury charge regarding the Occupiers' Liability Act, improperly excluded them from the courtroom, and that the respondent's jury address was inflammatory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the jury charge, noting the exclusion was on agreement of counsel, and holding that the jury address was not inappropriate.

The appellant appealed an order of the motions judge.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the analysis and disposition of the motions judge.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents in the amount of $5,000.

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter given the amount of the judgment, without prejudice to the appellants commencing an appeal in the proper forum.

The defendant appealed a jury verdict in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

At trial, the judge excluded defence video surveillance evidence intended for impeachment, failed to provide a correcting instruction after the plaintiffs' counsel made an inflammatory closing address, and failed to fairly review the defence's medical evidence of malingering in the jury charge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge applied the wrong legal test for admitting impeachment evidence under Rule 30.09 and erred in his handling of the closing address and jury charge.

The cumulative effect of these errors resulted in a miscarriage of justice, necessitating a new trial.

The plaintiff brokerage firm sued a competing firm and several former employees for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, and wrongful interference with economic interests after the defendants aggressively recruited the plaintiff's employees.

The defendants sought to plead the plaintiff's own past recruiting practices as a defence.

The Court of Appeal held that the defendants could not rely on the plaintiff's past practices as a defence to the claim for equitable relief under the clean hands doctrine, as there was no direct connection to the transaction at issue.

However, the defendants were permitted to plead the plaintiff's recruiting practices as a defence to the claim for punitive damages, as the plaintiff's similar conduct could diminish the outrage associated with the defendants' actions.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding an insurance claim for economic loss following a fire.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision to reject a financial planner's letter and his conclusion that the appellant failed to prove economic loss for the period beyond the policy coverage based on tax returns.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $3,000.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action, arguing the judge erred in finding just cause for termination.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's contextual approach, agreeing that the appellant's unauthorized store closure, false reports of staff resignations, and prolonged insubordination justified dismissal without notice.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding the quantum of trial costs was also dismissed, as the trial judge appropriately exercised his discretion under Rule 57.01.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The appellants appealed a jury award for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the admissibility of lay evidence related to the respondent's claim for loss of future income as a hair colourist, finding it relevant and not prejudicial.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding general damages, finding the jury's award inordinately high, and substituted an award of $125,000.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The respondent alleged that a property jointly owned by her former husband and the appellant was fraudulently conveyed to the appellant to defeat her interests as a creditor.

The trial judge agreed and set aside the transaction, finding the property was owned by both as joint tenants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's finding of fact was reasonable and entitled to deference.

Costs of the appeal were fixed at $5,000.

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

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellants, defendants in commercial litigation, sought to set aside a sealing order made in a separate matrimonial proceeding involving the plaintiff.

The appellants' counsel had accessed the matrimonial file, which had not been physically sealed due to an administrative error, and copied documents to use in the commercial litigation.

The motion judge ordered the appellants to comply with the sealing order and dismissed their cross-motion to set it aside.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants were not 'persons affected' by the sealing order within the meaning of Rule 37.14(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as their proprietary or economic interests were not directly affected, and therefore they lacked standing to challenge it.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against the manufacturers and the independent tester (ULC) of an allegedly defective smoke alarm, seeking damages for pure economic loss.

The defendants moved to strike the statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff could not maintain an action against the manufacturers whose products he did not purchase.

However, the court allowed the negligence claim against the manufacturer of his specific smoke alarm to proceed, finding it was not plain and obvious that a claim for pure economic loss based on a defective safety device would fail.

The negligence claim against the independent tester was struck out as it owed no prima facie duty of care to the purchaser.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action for failing to pay previously ordered costs and security for costs.

The appellant argued there were procedural deficiencies in how the dismissal order was obtained.

The Court of Appeal found no procedural defects, noting the appellant had been expressly warned that failure to comply by the deadline would result in dismissal without further notice.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding the wrongful distribution of corporate assets to themselves, to the detriment of the respondent shareholder.

The appellants argued the judgment should be set aside because the trial judge had also conducted the pre-trial conference, contrary to Rule 50.04.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants had explicitly waived any objection to the trial judge presiding and suffered no prejudice.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's findings on the wrongful distribution of assets and the imposition of liability on the appellants under the oppression remedy provisions of the Business Corporations Act.

The appellant successfully avoided eviction in a private landlord and tenant dispute, rendering the appeal moot.

Although the appeal raised a potentially significant public interest issue regarding the publication of a young offender's identity under the Young Offenders Act, the court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal.

The court noted the issue was not evasive of review and was unlikely to arise again between the same parties.

The appeal was quashed.

The appellant pedestrian was struck by a bus making a left turn while she was crossing the street with the light.

At trial, the jury found the respondent driver was not negligent and found the appellant contributorily negligent.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the jury's finding regarding the driver's lack of negligence was perverse, as he had a duty to yield.

However, the majority found there was some basis for the jury's finding of contributory negligence.

A new trial was ordered on the issues of contributory negligence and damages, as the damage assessment was tainted by the perverse liability finding and improper evidence regarding collateral benefits.

The employer appealed a trial decision finding it lacked just cause to dismiss the employee for a single instance of poor judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the contextual approach from McKinley v. BC Tel.

The court also upheld the trial judge's assessment of the notice period, rejected the argument that subsequent dealings with the Unemployment Insurance Commission should reduce the notice period, and found no error in the costs award under Rule 49.10.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that ordered them to pay $4,222 net to the respondents following a dispute over the construction of a custom home.

The appellants sought over $88,000 on appeal.

The respondents argued the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction because the trial judgment was for less than $25,000.

The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that under the Courts of Justice Act, jurisdiction is determined by the amount of the judgment ordered, not the amount claimed on appeal.

The appeal was transferred to the Divisional Court.

The appellant appealed a judgment dismissing its application for a declaration that it continued to have a right to redeem a mortgaged property and its request for equitable relief.

The respondent bank did not oppose a brief extension of the right to redeem.

The Court of Appeal set aside the lower court's order and granted the appellant an extension of time to redeem the property, subject to strict conditions including full payment of principal, interest, and costs by a specified date.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal fixed at $500.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing an application on the basis that disputed facts required a trial.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the matter could not proceed by way of application, but held that the motion judge should have converted the proceeding into an action under the Rules of Civil Procedure rather than dismissing it without prejudice.

The appeal was allowed, the dismissal order was set aside, and directions were given for pleadings and discovery in the converted action.

No costs were awarded on the appeal.