Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

The appellants appealed the trial judge's dismissal of their action for damages against the City of Hamilton, which arose from a motorcycle accident caused by a pavement discontinuity.

The trial judge had found the City established a defence under the Municipal Act, 2001, by meeting Minimum Maintenance Standards (MMS).

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error in determining the height of the discontinuity, as the City failed to meet its onus to prove compliance with MMS.

The Court also found a palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of contributory negligence, attributing 100% fault to the respondent.

The appeal was allowed, and judgment was granted for the appellants.

The appellant brought a second application for adverse possession of a smaller portion of land after a previous application for the same parcel was dismissed on summary judgment and the appeal was dismissed.

The second application was dismissed on the basis of res judicata and issue estoppel.

The appellant appealed, claiming the subject matter of the current application was not the same.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the earlier action included the smaller portion and that a claimant cannot modify the parameters of their claim within the same boundaries to obtain a different result, as this is contrary to the objective of res judicata and issue estoppel.

The appellant, Qiangli Cao, appealed a summary judgment that dismissed his action for defamation, racial discrimination, and dereliction of duty against the City of Markham and Markham Public Library.

The motion judge had found the action barred by issue estoppel, as the claims largely impugned evidence previously determined in a prior action by the appellant's company (CPCL) against the same respondents.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's reasoning, confirming that the validity of the evidence had been finally determined and that the appellant was a privy to the prior proceeding.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The London Transit Commission (LTC) appealed a motion judge's decision to strike its third-party claim against Eaton Industries (Canada) Company (Eaton) as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

LTC argued the motion judge erred in determining when it had actual or constructive knowledge of the claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's findings that LTC had actual or constructive knowledge of its claim against Eaton by May 22, 2013, and failed to exercise due diligence in investigating the contamination.

The court rejected LTC's arguments regarding a general rule for discoverability in environmental claims, continuing torts, and standalone claims, and declined to consider a new argument under the Environmental Protection Act.

The appellants appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Justice rendered by Justice Paul B. Kane following a jury trial.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and awarded the appellants costs of the appeal in the amount of $22,000.

The costs of the trial were reserved to the discretion of the judge presiding over the re-trial.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision and sought leave to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the fresh evidence motion, noting it did not meet the test and was not needed to argue the appeal.

On the main appeal, the appellants argued that summary judgment was premature due to missing evidence.

The Court rejected this, finding the appellants failed to take steps to compel production and did not put their best foot forward.

The motion judge correctly applied the tests for summary judgment.

The appeal and leave to appeal costs were dismissed, with costs of the appeal fixed at $85,000.

The appellants appealed an order striking their negligence claim against former criminal defence counsel as an abuse of process.

The court held the civil action was plainly a collateral attack on criminal convictions that had remained undisturbed on appeal.

To succeed, the appellants would have had to prove that, but for counsel's negligence, the accused would have been acquitted, thereby re-litigating the criminal charges and undermining the integrity of the adjudicative process.

The court held that allegations of ineffective assistance generally should be pursued by direct attack within the criminal proceeding, not through a separate civil action.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Following the release of the main appeal decision, the appellants and respondents settled the issue of costs.

The respondents sought an additional $5,000 in partial indemnity costs against the interveners.

The Court of Appeal declined to award costs against the interveners, finding that the respondents had already recovered substantial costs from the appellants and incurred only nominal costs from the intervention.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment setting aside a transfer agreement on grounds of undue influence, breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, and unconscionability.

The appellants argued the trial judge exceeded his jurisdiction under a bifurcation order and made palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's order was within the scope of the bifurcation order and his factual findings were well-supported by the evidence.

In a medical negligence appeal arising from a hysterectomy that resulted in ureter injury, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in law in treating an alleged failure to disclose surgical risks as battery rather than informed consent governed by negligence principles.

Applying the informed consent framework from Reibl v. Hughes, the court found the reasons addressed only part of the subjective inquiry and failed entirely to consider the required objective test.

The court also held that the finding of negligent delayed diagnosis was unsupported because there was no evidence that the CT scan contemplated on July 7 would have revealed the ureter injury or that earlier diagnosis would have permitted immediate repair.

The appeal was allowed, a new trial ordered, and appeal costs fixed at $20,000.

The plaintiffs appealed the trial judge's assessment of damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, arguing the judge erred in finding the main plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages.

The defendants cross-appealed the damages assessment and appealed the order adding the Police Services Board as a defendant, as well as the trial costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals regarding the addition of the Board and the damages assessments.

However, the Court allowed the defendants' costs appeal, finding the trial judge erred by comparing the defendants' settlement offers to the gross damages assessment rather than the net judgment after statutory deductions.

The costs order was varied to award the plaintiffs their disbursements throughout but no legal fees after the date of the defendants' second offer.

Following a successful appeal by the City of Toronto on a single issue, the Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement.

Because several issues from the original application remained undetermined and were remitted to the Superior Court, the Court of Appeal set aside the application judge's costs order and reserved the costs of both the original application and the appeal to the judge determining the remitted issues.

The appellant, who had previously pleaded guilty to fraud over $5000, brought two civil proceedings against the police and others for false arrest, false imprisonment, defamation, conspiracy, and abuse of authority.

The respondents successfully moved for summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no genuine issue for trial, as the respondents acted lawfully and had reasonable and probable grounds for the charges.

The appellant blocked a channel between his property and the respondents', causing water to back up.

The trial judge found the channel was a natural watercourse, not merely surface water, and ordered the appellant to remove the barrier and pay damages.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in classifying the partially artificial channel as a natural watercourse and in finding it maintained its character downstream.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the channel was a well-defined natural watercourse where it was blocked.

The landlord of a retail shopping mall redesigned the development without notifying the franchisor or the franchisee, who had relied on the original site plan attached to their leases.

The franchisee suffered business losses due to the redesign and construction.

The trial judge found the landlord liable for negligent misrepresentation and the franchisor liable for innocent misrepresentation and breach of the duty of good faith, awarding the franchisee $400,000 in damages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the liability and damages findings, concluding that the site plan constituted a representation of the mall's layout.

However, the Court allowed the landlord's appeal regarding the franchisor's claim for contribution and indemnity, finding the franchisor was estopped by its contradictory litigation conduct.

The appellant appealed a judgment dismissing his action following a jury verdict that found no negligence by the respondent driver, who suffered a medical episode while driving.

The appellant argued the trial judge misdirected the jury on the defence of inevitable accident and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the jury instructions and holding that the verdict was supported by evidence that the respondent had no prior daytime episodes, no medical warnings against driving, and no advance warning of the episode.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his claims in contract and negligence against the City of Toronto and its officials.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error, deferring to the trial judge's findings that no contract was formed and that there was no negligence on the part of the City's officials.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Following the release of the majority reasons for judgment dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal received written submissions on costs.

Having regard to the respondents' success, the complexity and novelty of the issues, and the equities between the parties, the court awarded the respondents their costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $38,000 all inclusive.

The insured was seriously injured in a motorcycle accident in Florida.

Her travel insurer paid her medical expenses and sought to assert a subrogated claim against the insurer of the at-fault driver.

The application judge held that the travel insurer had no right of subrogation because its policy had to conform to the Ontario Insurance Act, which bars subrogation for health care expenses.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision, holding that Ontario contract law, not Florida tort law, governed the subrogation right.

The Court also applied the Fraser River principled exception to privity of contract, allowing the at-fault driver's insurer to benefit from the statutory waiver of subrogation.

A motion was brought to determine the proper appellate jurisdiction for appeals and cross-appeals arising from judgments on construction lien and breach of trust claims under the Construction Lien Act.

The Court of Appeal held that section 71(1) of the Act applies to both lien claims and trust claims, meaning all such appeals lie to the Divisional Court.

The motion was granted and the appeals were transferred to the Divisional Court.