Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their claims for economic torts, breach of fiduciary duties, and breach of a settlement agreement containing non-competition terms, as well as the judgment granting a counterclaim for an unpaid bonus.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants' arguments were primarily disagreements with the trial judge's factual and credibility findings.

The court held that the trial judge made no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact, and that the findings were supported by the evidentiary record.

The appellant mother appealed orders from a motion to change, challenging findings on material change in parenting time, child and spousal support variations due to income changes, and credit for matrimonial home expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings, emphasizing deference to factual conclusions and proper application of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The moving party, who was the respondent on a previous appeal, brought a motion under Rules 37.14 and 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to vary the Court of Appeal's decision and dismiss the appeal.

The moving party argued the court erred by misreading the record regarding the interpretation of a partnership agreement.

The court found Rule 37.14 inapplicable as it pertains to specific procedural errors, and Rule 59.06 (accidental slip or omission) also inapplicable, as the submission was a re-argument of a point already considered and not supported by the trial judge's findings or the agreement's wording.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The appellant insurer appealed a lower court decision that found it had a continuing duty to defend the respondent insured in an underlying action.

The insured had purchased property with title insurance and was subsequently sued by a previous owner claiming invalid sale and unjust enrichment.

Although the insured later lost title to the property, the application judge found the amended statement of claim included a claim for damages against the insured, triggering the insurer's duty to defend.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal, affirming that the amended statement of claim could reasonably be read to include a claim for damages against the insured, thus upholding the duty to defend.

Mitchell Dubros appealed the dismissal of his certiorari application, which sought to quash his committal for trial on a charge of obstructing justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's decision, affirming that a preliminary inquiry judge's determination of evidentiary sufficiency is owed great deference.

The court held that there was "any evidence" to meet the threshold for committal, specifically evidence of threats made to dissuade witnesses, which constitutes obstruction of justice under s. 139(3) of the Criminal Code, and that the mental element of the offence was sufficiently established.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent purchased a transformer from the appellant, which failed due to a defective tap changer.

The respondent sued for breach of contract and was granted summary judgment based on the 'fit for purpose' warranty in the Sale of Goods Act.

The appellant appealed, arguing that summary judgment would prejudice its cross-claim against the third-party manufacturer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no triable issue regarding the contract breach and no risk of inconsistent findings of fact in the remaining cross-claims.

This is a motion to review the decision of Justice M.L. Benotto dismissing a motion for an extension of time to appeal.

The Court of Appeal panel found that Benotto J.A. applied the correct test and saw no basis to interfere with her discretionary decision.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed from a summary judgment order dismissing his action against police services and other defendants.

The action arose from two events: an alleged negligent police investigation into a theft complaint and alleged negligent investigations into complaints of child abuse.

The motion judge dismissed the action on two grounds: no duty of care was owed by the police to the appellant, and the action was commenced after the applicable limitation period had expired.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the motion judge correctly concluded there was no duty of care owed to the appellant based on established precedent.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of a third party claim arising from a tug-of-war injury.

The plaintiff was severely injured during a recreational tug-of-war at a campground when his arm became caught in a loop in the rope, resulting in amputation of his forearm.

The appellants sought contribution and indemnity from the third parties who participated in the game.

The motion judge dismissed the third party claim, finding that the third parties owed no duty of care to the plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that the third parties did not fall within any of the circumstances that would impose a positive duty to act, and that the injury was not a reasonably foreseeable result of participation in a recreational tug-of-war game.

The applicant brought a motion seeking several orders: dispensing with the requirement to sign a standard undertaking to obtain audio recordings of earlier motions; permission to transcribe those proceedings; direction to publish reasons of a prior motion judge; and permission to challenge the constitutional validity of portions of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondents took no position on the motion.

The Attorney General of Ontario and Department of Justice Canada argued the motion was not properly before the court and that the Notice of Constitutional Question was a nullity.

The court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction, as the underlying appeal had been quashed in prior proceedings.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from an order striking out her statement of claim without leave to amend.

The motion judge had found numerous pleading shortcomings and determined the action constituted an abuse of process.

The applicant's motion for an extension was dismissed on the grounds of: (1) a lengthy and unexplained delay of approximately 10 months; (2) lack of evidentiary support for claimed medical impediments; (3) absence of merit to the underlying appeal; and (4) the overall justice of the case, particularly given the multi-year history of frivolous and vexatious proceedings by the applicant.

This is a costs endorsement following the Court of Appeal's decision allowing the appeal of the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NCVA) against a Divisional Court decision.

The NCVA sought costs of $77,419.86 on a partial indemnity basis for both the appeal and Divisional Court proceedings.

The court awarded reduced costs, finding the amounts sought for the leave to appeal motion and appeal hearing to be excessive relative to the Divisional Court costs.

The Gilmors were ordered to pay the NCVA $44,674.25 all-inclusive in total costs.

The applicant sought a fee waiver from a judge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario in respect of filing fees for a notice of appeal from a Superior Court judgment.

The underlying proceeding involved an application by the Attorney General of Ontario under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 for forfeiture of seized funds.

The applicant claimed the funds were not proceeds of crime.

The judge dismissed the fee waiver request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a lack of financial means to pay the appeal fees.

The applicant's fee waiver affidavit was inconsistent with evidence he had previously presented to the application judge regarding his prior employment, income, and financial assets.

Hydro One appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice seeking a declaration that the Ontario Provincial Police must provide accident reports containing personal information of drivers and vehicle owners when Hydro One's property is damaged in traffic accidents.

The OPP refused to provide such reports without a court order, citing the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Court of Appeal adjourned the appeal to receive written submissions on two jurisdictional issues: whether the court could make a declaration interpreting a statute under the Rules of Civil Procedure when there is no actual lis between the parties, and whether the court could make a declaration interpreting FIPPA provisions outside the context of a judicial review of a privacy commissioner's decision.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the statement that the appellant quit was res judicata and protected by qualified privilege.

However, the Court intervened on the costs award, finding the appellant did not have a fair opportunity to make submissions and the respondent failed to provide information about the costs of the action.

The costs award for the summary judgment motion was fixed at $15,000, with the balance of the action's costs to be assessed.

No costs were awarded for the appeal due to divided success.

The appellant appealed an order approving a settlement by an Interim Receiver.

The appellant argued there was no evidence to sustain the motion judge's findings under the Soundair principles.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence in the Interim Receiver's reports that no assets beyond certain Swiss accounts were locatable or realizable, and that there was a 60% chance of success in related California litigation.

The court concluded the settlement was the best that could be achieved in the circumstances.

The plaintiffs sued a tour operator and a cruise provider after allegedly contracting an airborne virus on a Caribbean cruise.

The cruise provider appealed a motion judge's decision that Ontario law applied to the action, arguing that the contract specified the law of England, which would bar the claim under the two-year limitation period in the Athens Convention.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the expiration of a limitation period does not constitute an injustice sufficient to override the contractual choice of law or the lex loci delicti rule.

The law of England was declared to apply to the issues between the plaintiffs and the cruise provider.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against the respondents.

The appellant alleged that the respondents breached a duty of care by failing to properly trace a harassing phone call, which led to his implication.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it unnecessary to decide the duty of care issue because there was no evidence that further investigation by the respondents would have produced exculpatory evidence for the appellant.

The appellant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident while a passenger in an uninsured vehicle.

He sought indemnity from the respondent insurer under a policy issued to a man with whom he lived in a de facto parent-child relationship.

The motions judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding the appellant was neither a 'person insured under the contract' under s. 265 of the Insurance Act nor a 'relative' under the OPCF 44 endorsement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the definition of 'insured' in s. 224(1) applies to s. 265, and that 'relative' in the endorsement should be interpreted liberally to include a de facto parent-child relationship, provided dependency is proven at trial.

The appellants challenged a trial judgment in a personal injury action, arguing principally that the trial judge erred in admitting CAS records and applied the wrong onus.

The Court of Appeal held that, even if the hearsay objection had merit, the adverse credibility finding was strongly supported by other evidence and no substantial wrong or miscarriage resulted.

The court also rejected the onus argument because the finding that the bus was properly brought to a stop was a complete answer.

The threshold issue did not need to be addressed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs if demanded.