Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

The appellant held an unsatisfied default judgment against a contractor for defective sewer installation and sought to recover the judgment from the contractor's insurer under s. 132 of the Insurance Act.

The insurer denied coverage because it did not receive notice of the action until nine years after it was commenced.

The application judge dismissed the claim, finding the insured breached the policy's timely notice condition and refusing relief from forfeiture due to prejudice to the insurer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that notice provided by the appellant under Statutory Condition 8 did not cure the lack of timeliness, and that the appellant stood in no better position than the insured.

The moving party, a party under disability represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian, sought leave to appeal an order approving a $1 million settlement of her motor vehicle accident claims.

The moving party was previously made subject to an order under Rule 37.16 prohibiting her from bringing further motions or appeals without leave due to a history of frivolous proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that the moving party lacked standing to act independently of her litigation guardian, and that the proposed appeal lacked reasonable grounds and would be an abuse of process.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

On consent of the parties, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal without costs.

The appellant used the respondent bank's self-service transfer facility to send funds to a Polish bank, and later claimed the beneficiary defrauded it.

The Polish bank had alerted the respondent to suspected fraud, but the respondent did not pass this information to the appellant.

The appellant sued, alleging a breach of the duty of care.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding the bank's duty of care was limited to executing the transfers properly and did not require it to investigate the bona fides of the underlying transactions.

The parties reached an agreement regarding the costs of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal ordered costs to the respondent in the agreed amount of $20,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The appellant appealed an order confirming emergency orders issued by the municipality's Chief Building Official under the Building Code Act, which required the appellant to pay the costs of terminating an immediate danger posed by an exposed wall.

The appellant argued the application judge failed to consider equitable set-off.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had not raised the issue of equitable set-off before the application judge and it would be contrary to the interests of justice to allow the new argument on appeal.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their counterclaim for fraudulent misrepresentation and inducing breach of contract arising from a residential property refinancing.

The trial judge found no evidence that the respondent made false representations or intended to procure a breach of the settlement agreement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding there was no error of law, no differential standard of scrutiny applied, and no reasonable apprehension of bias from the trial judge's questioning.

The appeal and the appeal as to costs were dismissed.

In an addendum to a previous appeal decision regarding a breached real estate contract, the Court of Appeal determined the amount of consequential damages owed to the appellants.

The appellants filed documentation establishing consequential losses of $28,536.64, which the respondents acknowledged as reasonable.

The court ordered the respondents to pay this amount in addition to the previously awarded damages, along with pre-judgment interest.

No order as to costs was made as the parties reached an agreement.

The respondents moved for an order under r. 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure granting them leave to examine the appellants' former lawyer regarding communications relating to the appeals.

The appellants had sought leave to file Supplementary Notices of Appeal, arguing the current appeals did not reflect their instructions to their former lawyers.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding the instructions given to counsel were highly relevant to the appellants' motion and the respondents had moved promptly.

The appellant, a party under disability with the Public Guardian and Trustee appointed as his litigation guardian, filed a Notice of Appeal challenging a case management judge's order that stayed his action as frivolous, vexatious, or abusive.

The respondents requested an order under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure dismissing the appeal.

The Court of Appeal found the Notice of Appeal to be largely unintelligible and seeking relief the court could not grant, demonstrating the appellant's incapacity to represent himself.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous on its face.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondents over $2 million in damages arising from a motor vehicle accident where a pedestrian was struck.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by discharging the jury mid-trial, refusing a mistrial, mishandling evidence of CPP disability benefits, and excluding surveillance videos.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge had ample basis to discharge the jury due to scheduling issues and late disclosure of an umbrella insurance policy.

While the surveillance videos should have been admitted, their exclusion did not cause a miscarriage of justice given their minimal probative value.

The moving party sought to set aside an order requiring it to post $100,000 each in security for costs for the responding parties on an appeal.

The motion judge had found the appeal had a low prospect of success and the moving party failed to prove it lacked access to funds despite apparent impecuniosity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no error in principle in the motion judge's discretionary order and refusing to admit fresh evidence that was available at the time of the original motion.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment enforcing a loan agreement and personal guarantees, arguing they were entitled to a set-off due to the respondent's breach of related investment and commercial agreements.

The appellants sought to introduce fresh evidence of the respondent's sales to prove a breach of the commercial agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test.

The court also dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the investment agreement had not been orally amended and that the commercial agreement was not a live issue at trial.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment finding them liable for breaching a share purchase agreement, arguing the respondents misrepresented the condition of the equipment.

The respondents cross-appealed the dismissal of their claim for contribution and indemnity against a third-party corporation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the agreement contained no misrepresentation regarding the equipment.

The cross-appeal was allowed and remitted to the motion judge because no reasons were provided for dismissing the third-party claim.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent 24 months' notice and bonus entitlements for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in interpreting the employment contract, resignation, and release in the context of a commercial share sale.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable errors of law in the motion judge's contractual interpretation, upholding the finding that the release of ESA rights was void, and affirming the 24-month notice period and bonus entitlement.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following a motion.

Costs were fixed and awarded to the responding party in the amount of $768.40, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The defendant in a personal injury action brought a motion to stay an order striking out the parties' jury notices pending her appeal.

The trial was scheduled to proceed before a judge alone due to COVID-19 pandemic delays affecting civil jury trials.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the motion judge found that the appeal lacked merit as the order was likely interlocutory, the defendant would not suffer irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured proceeding with the long-delayed trial.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The moving parties, survivors of the St. Anne's Indian Residential School, appealed an order directing their Request for Directions to be heard by a judge of the British Columbia Supreme Court rather than the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

They brought a motion for a stay of the transfer order pending appeal and to expedite the appeal.

The Court of Appeal determined the transfer order was final for the purposes of appeal, applied the RJR-MacDonald test rather than the strong cause approach, and granted the stay, finding a serious question of interpretation regarding the Court Administration Protocol, potential for irreparable harm from inconsistent results, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The appellant property manager appealed the dismissal of its summary judgment motion, arguing that the respondent condominium corporation's action for construction defects was a nullity because it failed to provide owners with notice under s. 23(2) of the Condominium Act, 1998 before issuing a notice of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, taking the rare step of overruling its own previous decision in Medhurst.

The Court held that applying the modern approach to statutory interpretation, non-compliance with the notice provision does not render an action a nullity, as doing so would undermine the consumer protection purpose of the Act and cause injustice to the condominium owners the provision was designed to protect.

The appellant entered into a building contract for a new home and paid a 25% deposit.

She later repudiated the contract after failing to agree on modifications to reduce costs.

The trial judge dismissed her claim for the return of the deposit, finding it was a true deposit subject to forfeiture upon repudiation.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in interpreting the deposit provision and in denying relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the deposit retained its character and that forfeiture was not unconscionable or disproportionate to the damages suffered by the respondents.