Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

The moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal by the appellant regarding an order granting the media access to a video exhibit from the appellant's concluded bail hearing.

The moving party argued the matter was criminal in nature, meaning jurisdiction lay with the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that because the criminal proceedings were fully concluded and the order did not affect any ongoing criminal matter or the appellant's fair trial rights, the proceeding was civil in nature and properly appealed to the Court of Appeal under the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering him to pay $3.8 million for breach of a real estate joint venture agreement.

The appellant argued the respondent was disentitled to the funds for trading in real estate without a license and sought disgorgement of a commission.

The respondent cross-appealed for punitive damages and a higher rate of prejudgment interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the respondent was exempt from licensing requirements as it was dealing with its own interest, the commission was properly disclosed, and the appellant's conduct did not meet the exceptional threshold required for punitive damages.

The self-represented appellant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing the action for delay.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by giving no credence to the appellant's un-cross-examined affidavit explaining the delay.

Noting that the respondents had also delayed in taking steps and that there was no evidence of actual prejudice, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal, and imposed a strict timetable for the appellant to advance the litigation.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action for breach of fiduciary duty and professional negligence against her former solicitor.

The solicitor had acted for the appellant on a mortgage transaction while also acting for the borrowers on a related commercial loan.

The trial judge found that the solicitor's retainer was limited to the mortgage transaction, that he had warned the appellant about the risks of the wider loan, and that the appellant had rebuffed his concerns.

The Court of Appeal found no overriding and palpable error in the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants appealed a judgment regarding a mortgage dispute involving s. 22 and s. 36 of the Mortgages Act and a tax issue.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's comprehensive reasons and findings of fact were open to him and there was no basis to interfere.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant obstetrician appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for negligence in the delivery of the respondent's child.

The trial judge found that the appellant fell below the standard of care by improperly using forceps, which caused injuries to the respondent's uterus, and by negligently suturing the injuries, which occluded her ureter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in his factual findings and properly relied on the evidence of the respondents' expert.

Counsel for the appellants brought a motion to be removed from the record.

The court granted the order removing counsel.

As the remaining appellant failed to appear despite being advised that the appeal would proceed, the appeal was dismissed as abandoned with costs awarded to the respondent.

The self-represented appellants appealed a trial judge's finding of liability and decision to strike a jury notice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's liability finding and concluding that fresh evidence would not have altered the result.

The court also held it was open to the trial judge to strike the jury notice.

The appeal was dismissed without costs.

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

The Court of Appeal determined that the order appealed from was interlocutory, not final.

As a result, the court lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was quashed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the trial judge, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding a failure to establish causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact and agreeing that the appellant failed to establish the necessary element of causation.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that the parties had agreed to buy and sell an interest in Prince Diamonds, with all material terms concluded and an implied term that the transaction would be structured to be as tax neutral as possible.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was evidence to support the trial judge's findings of fact and inferences.

The Crown appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for withheld rent and extensive asbestos re-cleaning costs at a leased property.

Old Colony appealed the finding that it was liable to pay its cleaning contractor, Power Vac.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both liability appeals, finding the Crown's failure to follow safety regulations caused the contamination and labour dispute, and that Power Vac had substantially performed its contract.

However, the Court allowed the Crown's appeal regarding costs, setting aside the trial judge's order that the Crown pay the costs of the separate action between Old Colony and Power Vac.

The moving parties on this costs motion sought costs for their opposition to a stay motion, an application for leave to appeal, and the costs motion itself, claiming up to $67,000.

The Court of Appeal awarded $20,000 in costs for the stay proceeding, noting that the Ministry's decision to terminate the charity's funding had been quashed.

The court declined to alter its previous costs order of $1,500 for the leave to appeal motion.

The appellant appealed an order of the motions judge granting summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's conclusion that there was no genuine issue for trial.

Costs were fixed at $5,000.

The appellant appealed an order allowing the Crown to set-off damages payable to the appellant under a judgment against monies the appellant owed to the Crown under a restitution order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the combined effect of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act and the Financial Administration Act entitled the Crown to the set-off.

The court also rejected arguments based on bankruptcy principles and res judicata.

The appellants appealed a final order regarding their attempt to redeem a mortgage under s. 22(1) of the Mortgages Act.

The appellants had obtained an ex parte injunction and paid funds into court, but the respondent mortgagee had no notice of this and finalized a sale of the property under a power of sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that because the mortgagee had no notice of the payment into court, it was not precluded from finalizing the sale, which extinguished the appellants' right to redeem.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that limited its damages for lost parking spaces to the value of 20 spaces ($40,650) and dismissed its claim for injurious affection.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge relied on acceptable expert evidence and made no palpable and overriding error in his assessment of damages.

The appellant bank appealed a trial judgment holding it liable for the unauthorized transfer of $4 million of the respondent's funds.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by relying on hearsay evidence to reject its defences of acquiescence, ratification, and contributory negligence, by failing to draw an adverse inference, and by not reducing damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the out-of-court statements were properly admitted to show the respondent's state of mind, not for their truth.

The court also upheld the trial judge's findings on the adverse inference and damages.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim to recover damages from the respondent lawyer for amounts agreed to be paid to lien claimants in a prior consent judgment.

The appellant argued the respondent was estopped by conduct from contesting the validity of the lien claims and sought the return of a $10,000 retainer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to establish the necessary representation and reliance for estoppel, and had no valid claim to the holdback from which the retainer was paid.

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.