Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Motion dismissed.

The appellant, a third party, appealed a motion judge's decision regarding the effect of a Pierringer Agreement on third- and fourth-party claims.

The agreement, entered into by the plaintiffs and a settling defendant, limited the plaintiffs' claims against remaining defendants to several liability.

The appellant argued this precluded the remaining defendant from pursuing its third-party claims.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the Pierringer Agreement and the subsequent order, while limiting the plaintiffs' recovery against the remaining defendant to its several liability, did not affect the remaining defendant's ability to seek contribution from third parties.

The appellants, Ronald Patterson and his family, appealed the dismissal of their motions to strike the jury and declare a mistrial in a motor vehicle personal injury action.

During jury deliberations, a juror accessed extrinsic information (Fault Determination Rules) online and shared it.

The trial judge conducted an inquiry, issued a correcting charge, and dismissed the motions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge properly inquired into the extrinsic information and effectively addressed its prejudicial effect with a correcting charge, which the jury was presumed to have followed.

The court found no misapprehension of evidence or patent unreasonableness in the trial judge's decision.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claim pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion judge had dismissed the claim as incomprehensible and non-compliant with Rule 25.06.

The Court of Appeal found that while the motion judge erred in applying Rule 2.1 as a substitute for addressing pleading defects, the appeal was dismissed on the substantive ground that the appellant lacked standing to advance the claim.

The claim concerned errors by lawyers retained by her fiancé and insurance payments owed to him.

Upon the fiancé's death in 2015, any such rights devolved to his estate, not to the appellant personally.

The appellant's assertion that she was the executor of a will was unsupported by evidence.

The appellants wrongfully repudiated an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property in Burlington.

The vendor resold the property approximately two months after relisting it through the same agent.

The motion judge granted summary judgment ordering the appellants to pay the difference in purchase price and related expenses, finding the vendor acted reasonably in mitigating damages.

The appellants appealed, arguing the resale steps were unreasonable and challenging the price differential.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidentiary basis to interfere with the motion judge's decision.

The appellants acknowledged they added the broker and agent as parties solely to obtain disclosure of their file and market data, providing no legitimate basis to maintain the action against them.

The appellant appealed a decision denying him interest on a shareholder's loan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis for interest as there was no agreement between the shareholders, no demand for repayment, no finding of oppression, and no judgment upon which to award prejudgment interest.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his request to preserve a bathroom to take further pictures for his defence.

The motion judge had also dismissed his request for production of existing pictures, finding them irrelevant to the action, which the appellant did not appeal.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the order, as pictures of the room were deemed not relevant.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant, a law student, sued the respondent for defamation after the respondent made disparaging remarks about him into a microphone at an Italian social club meeting.

The motion judge dismissed the claims for libel and slander on a motion for summary judgment, finding that the use of a microphone was not a 'broadcast' under the Libel and Slander Act, that the appellant could not claim slander per se because he was not yet a lawyer, and that there was no evidence of special damage.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred by deciding novel and significant questions of law on a summary judgment motion without a full factual record, and finding that there was some evidence of special damage.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision striking his statement of claim and dismissing his action against the Crown and College respondents.

The appellant had asserted claims based in negligence, malice, misfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches relating to the suspension of his OHIP payments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the pleadings were seriously deficient, failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and that certain claims were res judicata.

The respondent was injured when the top of a utility pole erected by the appellant municipality snapped during a windstorm and struck his vehicle on the highway.

The trial judge found the municipality liable in negligence and awarded damages.

On appeal, the municipality argued the action was barred by the limitation periods in sections 284(2) and 284(3) of the Municipal Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that section 284(3) only applies when a vehicle leaves the highway, and section 284(2) did not apply because the claim was properly framed in negligence rather than non-repair.

The trial judge's inference of negligence and assessment of evidence were also upheld.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a motions judge's order regarding a third party claim for contribution and indemnity.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a claim for contribution and indemnity is not a claim for the recovery of damages within the meaning of s. 14(1) of the Condominium Act.

The court set aside the relevant paragraph of the motions judge's order and awarded costs to the appellant.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its action against the respondent insurance company.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the exclusion clause in the insurance policy was unambiguous and that the appellant's claim fell squarely within it.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision to strike a jury notice on the grounds of complexity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's discretion given the multiplicity of causes of action, defendants, heads of damages, and interlocking legal and factual issues.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding the reasons of the lower court judge persuasive.

The respondent was awarded costs fixed at $9,000.

The appellants appealed a decision of the motions judge who refused leave to amend the statement of defence and granted summary judgment to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal held that the motions judge was required to hear the motion to amend first and had no basis to refuse leave under Rule 26.01.

The Court granted leave to amend the statement of defence and, finding that the amended pleadings raised genuine issues for trial, dismissed the respondent's motion for summary judgment.

The appellant appealed a trial decision that turned entirely on findings of fact.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's essential findings.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an order granting an injunction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's decision and noting that the impact of the decision is a matter for the arbitrator, not the court.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision by Swinton J. dismissing their claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's principles or application, as the appellants produced no evidence of publication by the respondents beyond a communication that was absolutely privileged.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that they failed to meet the standard of care regarding the design of a carbonated beverage in a glass container.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were well supported by evidence that the product was dangerous and the manufacturer failed to take steps to reduce the risk of explosion.

A cross-appeal seeking to vary the apportionment of negligence was also dismissed, as it did not meet the threshold of a very strong and exceptional case.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim for real estate commission on the sale of an apartment building.

The trial judge found that the respondents did not deliberately delay the transaction to avoid paying commission and that the final offer was a separate and discrete transaction.

The Court of Appeal held that these findings of fact were well supported by the evidence and dismissed the appeal.