Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

The appellant estate trustee appealed a motion judge's order requiring the estate to pay damages to the respondent, who was the deceased's common law spouse.

The properties in question had been sold under power of sale after the respondent failed to make mortgage payments.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment, finding that the motion judge provided insufficient reasons for ordering the estate to pay damages that were previously ordered to be paid by the appellant personally, and for awarding damages for lost income after the properties were sold due to the respondent's default.

The appellant sold land to the City with an agreement that the City would build a road extension to the appellant's remaining lands along a specific route.

The City later discovered it could not build the road as agreed due to environmental assessment requirements for a rail spur, and admitted breach of contract.

The appellant sought a permanent injunction to compel the agreed route and prevent the rail spur.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding damages were an adequate remedy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, noting the appellant failed to plead damages in the alternative.

The appellants achieved modest success on their appeal, successfully striking down a ban on signs under s. 2(b) of the Charter and certain prohibitions in a municipal by-law.

However, the respondent municipality was substantially successful overall.

The Court of Appeal awarded the respondent reduced costs of the appeal fixed at $25,000.

The court declined to interfere with the lower court's costs award of $350,000 for the injunction motion and by-law application, finding it fair and reasonable.

The appellants brought a proposed class action against a washing machine manufacturer, alleging that its front-loading machines were defectively designed and prone to developing mould and unpleasant odours.

They sought damages for pure economic loss, asserting claims for breach of express and implied warranties, breach of the Competition Act, negligence, and waiver of tort.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision to dismiss the certification motion, finding that none of the claims disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

Notably, the court held that policy considerations negate recognizing a duty of care in tort for pure economic loss arising from a defective, non-dangerous consumer product.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The Court of Appeal ordered no costs of the appeal against the third party.

The costs of the certification motion were remitted to the motion judge to be dealt with in light of the Court's reasons.

The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $50,000 for fees and $10,000 for disbursements, plus applicable taxes.

The appellant garnishee appealed an order directing payment to the respondent judgment creditor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the motion judge to conclude the appellant had not established any debt owed to him by the debtor company to justify an offset.

The court also upheld the order for direct payment to the respondent, as there was evidence the respondent was the only execution creditor.

The appellant appealed an order striking his claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the record fully supported the lower court's conclusion that the appellant is a vexatious litigant, noting the Federal Court had reached the same conclusion in 2006.

Costs of $6,100 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a declaratory order that effectively determined a golf club board made no finding of assault or battery by the respondent.

This was a central contested issue in the pending lawsuit.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the order, holding that a contested factual finding cannot be determined in advance of trial merely on the consent of some parties, as this would impermissibly sanction a collateral attack at trial on an existing court order.

The appellant purchaser appealed a summary judgment granting damages to the respondent vendors for a failed real estate transaction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision.

The Court held that due to the 'time of the essence' provision, the vendors were not obligated to extend the closing date.

Furthermore, because the purchaser failed to tender funds after the closing date, he could not claim the vendors failed to mitigate by not completing the transaction with him.

The vendors' mitigation steps were deemed reasonable.

The appellants, former employees of CMHC, sought to certify class proceedings claiming that CMHC breached its duties by failing to partially terminate its pension plan and distribute the surplus to them after a workforce downsizing.

The motion judge and Divisional Court refused to certify the common issues, finding no viable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, the court lacks jurisdiction to order an employer to partially terminate a pension plan or to award damages premised on a partial termination.

The court also upheld the refusal to certify a misrepresentation claim and the denial of costs out of the pension fund.

The appellant, an unsecured judgment creditor of the respondent's husband, appealed an order setting aside the transfer of the matrimonial home from the respondent to her husband.

The motion judge had found the transfer was void due to undue influence and, alternatively, that the husband held the property in trust for the respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the finding of undue influence could not stand because it was not pleaded, depriving the appellant of procedural fairness.

However, the Court upheld the finding that the respondent did not intend to gift the property and held an interest by way of resulting or constructive trust, remitting the matter to determine the extent of that interest.

The appellant signed a guarantee included within a registered mortgage document.

Following a default and power of sale resulting in a deficiency, the mortgagee sued the appellant on the guarantee.

The appellant moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was statute-barred under the two-year limitation period for demand obligations in the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the ten-year limitation period under the Real Property Limitations Act applied.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that guarantees found in a mortgage instrument are governed by the Real Property Limitations Act.

The appellants failed to appear for the hearing of their appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision that set aside an arbitrator's interlocutory orders, an order striking statements of defence, a final arbitral award, and removed the arbitrator.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, holding that the application judge erred in setting aside the interlocutory orders, as the Arbitration Act does not permit judicial intervention for procedural decisions.

However, the Court upheld the setting aside of the order striking the pleadings and the final award, finding that the respondents were treated unfairly because their bankruptcy made compliance with the interlocutory orders legally impossible.

The removal of the arbitrator was also upheld.

The cross-appellants (the sellers) appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for negligent misrepresentation regarding the value of business inventory sold to the respondents (the buyers).

The trial judge had awarded damages to the buyers but reduced the award by 20 percent due to contributory negligence.

On appeal, the sellers argued the buyers did not reasonably rely on the misrepresentation and suffered no detriment, while the buyers argued the finding of contributory negligence was inconsistent with reasonable reliance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of reasonable reliance, detriment, and contributory negligence were supported by the evidence and could co-exist.

The appellant, who was struck on the head with rollerblades by a fellow student in the schoolyard when she was six years old, appealed the dismissal of her negligence action against the school board.

She argued that the absence of an incident report and the presence of rollerblades contrary to school policy compelled a finding of negligent supervision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the incident occurred suddenly and without warning, and that the appellant failed to establish a breach of the duty of care owed by the school.

The appellant appealed a jury's damages award in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

She argued that the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury on the meaning of 'material' contribution regarding causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury charge was not deficient when read as a whole.

The court noted that the jury was entitled to accept the defence theory, supported by the appellant's own medical expert, that her condition could have been caused by factors other than the accident.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his wrongful dismissal action against his former employer.

At trial, the parties relied on entirely different documents containing starkly different terms to support their conflicting versions of the employment contract.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's version of events and preferred the employer's documentary evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments were amply supported by the evidence and attracted considerable deference, with no palpable and overriding error demonstrated.

The appellants appealed from orders of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the claim in the underlying collection action was not a liquidated claim.

Consequently, the appellant was not a creditor within the meaning of the Bulk Sales Act.

The respondent was awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $5,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.