Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

Antonio Duscio sought a review of a single judge's decision dismissing his motion for release pending the hearing of his appeal from a 16-month sentence for contempt.

The contempt findings related to concealment of assets to avoid execution on a fraud judgment.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to intervene, deferring to the motion judge's discretionary weighing of factors, and dismissed the motion for release.

The court declined to decide whether criminal or civil process governs such release motions.

The appellant mortgagor defaulted on a third mortgage.

The respondent mortgagee obtained summary judgment for the principal amount on consent, and the motion judge subsequently assessed and reduced the ancillary amounts claimed for fees, penalties, and costs.

The motion judge also granted possession to the mortgagee.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's assessment of the amounts owed or the granting of possession, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment enforcing a default judgment obtained by the respondent in Minnesota for the supply of defective goods.

The appellant argued that a forum selection clause in its quotation conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Ontario courts, that Minnesota lacked a real and substantial connection to the dispute, and that enforcement was contrary to public policy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the forum selection clause was permissive rather than exclusive, a real and substantial connection to Minnesota existed, and the public policy defence did not apply.

The Crown appealed a motion judge's decision that a single notice letter satisfied the 60-day notice requirement under s. 7(1) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act for 15 separate class actions.

The actions alleged the Crown failed to enforce HST guidelines against automobile insurers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the notice letter communicated a broad complaint on behalf of a defined class and fulfilled the legislative purpose of allowing the Crown to investigate and prepare for litigation, even though 15 separate actions with different representative plaintiffs were ultimately commenced.

An appeal from a motion judge's decision to dismiss third-party claims against all persons except Barton Thomas Burron in a fraud matter involving Saint Luke Lutheran Church, an unincorporated association.

The motion judge had dismissed the third-party claims on the basis that only Burron had a distinct fiduciary duty and independent standard of care.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that complex issues regarding the status of the plaintiff, the application of law to unincorporated associations, the Negligence Act, and the Rules of Civil Procedure required a full evidentiary record and should proceed to trial rather than be dismissed on a motion.

The appellants purchased a swine farm from the respondent but suffered a loss when they could not secure a supply of pigs due to adverse market conditions.

They appealed the trial judge's dismissal of their claim for damages, arguing breach of good faith, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract because the barn was empty on closing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants had waived a condition regarding the supply of pigs and thereby assumed the risk of market changes.

The court also found no negligent misrepresentation due to an entire agreement clause and the appellants' direct discussions with the supplier, and concluded the contract did not require pigs to be in the barn on closing.

The appellants appealed a mini-trial judgment and costs order, arguing the trial judge erred by proceeding with the mini-trial before ruling on whether the action against one of the appellants was stayed under s. 69(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, finding the stay applied only to the bankrupt appellant and did not preclude the stand-alone claims against the others.

The court allowed the costs appeal in part, reducing the trial costs award by $7,500 to account for the appellants' success on a continuance motion.

The respondent, having been successful on the appeal, sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant argued that no costs should be awarded because the appeal involved an issue of public importance, or alternatively, that costs should be reduced to reflect divided success on the issues.

The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments, finding the issue was not truly novel and declining to make a distributive costs award.

The respondent was awarded costs of $83,875.85.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding a claim for indemnity by Tarion Warranty Corporation.

The central issue was whether Tarion's claim was caught by s. 18 of the Limitations Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 18 did not apply because Tarion was not sued.

The limitation period did not begin to run until Tarion paid out money to a third party, meaning the claims were brought within the applicable limitation period.

The appellant former directors and officers of Look Communications Inc. sought advance funding for their legal costs to defend an action brought against them by the corporation for breach of fiduciary duty.

The corporation resisted the claims under s. 124(4) of the Canada Business Corporations Act, arguing the appellants had not acted in good faith.

The application judge refused advance funding, finding the corporation had established a strong prima facie case of bad faith regarding equity cancellation payments and legal retainers.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that s. 124(4) applies to actions brought by the corporation and that the strong prima facie case standard is the appropriate test for denying advance funding.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her unjust enrichment claim against her deceased husband's mother.

The appellant and her husband had lived rent-free on the mother's farm and made extensive improvements to it.

After the husband's death, the appellant moved out and the mother sold the farm, keeping the proceeds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the improvements were largely paid for by the husband's company, that the benefits of living rent-free offset the value of the improvements, and that the improvements were made voluntarily and in self-interest, providing a juristic reason for the mother to retain the benefit.

The appellants appealed a judgment enforcing a mortgage, raising issues regarding the enforceability of unregistered standard terms, accounting errors, and a stay due to US bankruptcy proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's findings of fact, noting the standard terms were agreed to, and confirming the claim was not stayed by the foreign bankruptcy.

The trial judge's decision to fix costs was also upheld.

The appellant challenged the validity of a series of wills executed by an elderly testatrix, alleging undue influence by the respondent beneficiaries and executors, who included the testatrix's lawyer, doctor, and accountant.

The respondents brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the challenge, which the motion judge granted after finding no triable issue.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge lacked jurisdiction to grant summary judgment and erred in finding no triable issue.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the failure to amend the order for directions was a mere procedural defect and that the appellant failed to present any evidence to counter the respondents' substantial evidence supporting the wills' validity.

The appellant appealed a judgment enforcing his personal guarantee of loans, arguing the loans had already been paid.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the record did not support the appellant's claim of payment.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement regarding costs and the calculation of interest following its judgment on an appeal and cross-appeal.

The court clarified that interest on excessive management compensation should be calculated at the lower of the presumptive rate under the Courts of Justice Act or the prevailing chartered bank prime lending rate, using a floating rate for simple interest.

Due to divided success on the appeal and cross-appeal, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the production of a memorandum detailing a conversation between the defendants' former counsel and their expert witness, Dr. Grafius.

The defendants claimed the memorandum was protected by litigation privilege.

The Court of Appeal held that rule 31.06(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure must be interpreted broadly, requiring the disclosure of all foundational information for a testifying expert's report.

The court ordered the production of the memorandum, finding that litigation privilege does not protect the foundational information of an expert called to testify at trial.

The appellant, who had previously pled guilty to fraud, brought two civil actions against the police and others for false arrest, false imprisonment, defamation, conspiracy, and abuse of authority.

The respondents successfully moved for summary judgment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissals, finding no genuine issue for trial as the respondents acted lawfully, had reasonable and probable grounds for the charges, and there was no evidence to support the appellant's claims.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision regarding a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued there were genuine issues for trial concerning where the injured party was seated and whether wearing a seat belt would have mitigated her damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the appellant's position on the seating location and agreeing with the motion judge that expert evidence showed a seat belt would have made no difference.

The appellant appealed an order finding that the underlying action had not been settled.

The Court of Appeal first determined it had jurisdiction, as the order finally disposed of the fundamental issue of whether a settlement existed and the action continued.

On the merits, the Court upheld the motions judge's finding that there was no agreement to settle, noting that the original exchange of emails was ambiguous and subsequent conduct did not resolve the ambiguity.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

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.