Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

The respondent sought specific performance of an asset purchase agreement for its restaurant.

At the hearing, the application judge denied specific performance but awarded restitution for unjust enrichment, despite the claim not being pleaded in the Notice of Application.

The application judge had also indicated during the hearing that he would not entertain the unpleaded restitution claim, leading the appellant to make no submissions on the issue.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment, finding that the application judge's conduct denied the appellant procedural fairness and the right to know the case it had to meet.

The appellant challenged an order striking the statement of claim as vexatious and abusive under procedural rules.

The court rejected all grounds, including complaints about evidentiary use and refusal of leave to amend, and upheld dismissal.

After repeated non-compliance with production and undertaking orders, including a peremptory and then last-chance order, pleadings were struck.

The court found no basis to interfere with the motion judge’s discretionary determination and upheld the sanctions.

The appellant, Armando Scarlato Jr., appealed the dismissal of his breach of contract action on a motion for summary judgment.

He alleged the respondents, Richard Buzbuzian and Jason Monaco, breached an agreement to pay him a commission or finder’s fee for introducing them to a third-party corporation for a proposed IPO.

The motion judge found that emails exchanged did not constitute a contract, lacking essential terms, and alternatively, that the appellant was estopped by a settlement with the third party.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that no contract was formed, emphasizing deference to findings of contractual interpretation as mixed fact and law, and concluding that the term sheet did not remedy the contractual deficiencies.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

An appeal concerning the failure to disclose immediately litigation agreements between a plaintiff (subrogated insurer) and a defendant that converted their adversarial relationship into a cooperative one.

The plaintiff and defendant entered into two agreements (2011 and 2016) whereby the defendant would defend the action and prosecute a third-party claim funded by the plaintiff, and subsequently the plaintiff assigned all its rights in the action to itself.

These agreements were not disclosed immediately but rather piecemeal throughout 2016.

The motion judge found the agreements should have been disclosed but refused to stay the action, finding no prejudice.

The appellate court reversed, holding that failure to immediately disclose agreements that change the litigation landscape constitutes abuse of process requiring a stay of the non-disclosing party's claim as a matter of principle.

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

Prior to the hearing, the appellants notified the respondent that they were withdrawing their appeal and subsequently failed to appear in court.

The Court of Appeal noted the withdrawal in its endorsement.

The appellant challenged an order striking pleaded claims against an individual corporate principal and dismissing an unjust enrichment claim on a pleadings motion.

The Court of Appeal held that it was not plain and obvious that the statutory claims under s. 131 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the claim under s. 10 of the Partnerships Act, and the pleaded breach of contract and misrepresentation claims against the individual respondent could not succeed.

Applying the unjust enrichment benefit analysis from Peel, the court held the claim was properly struck against the individual respondent personally for lack of material facts showing a tangible benefit, but could proceed against the remaining respondents based on unpaid services and business expenses.

The appeal was allowed in part and costs were awarded to the appellant.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claim for indemnification under a commercial agreement due to failure to provide timely notice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation that the 18-month notice requirement was a condition precedent to the right of indemnity.

The Court also rejected the argument that the notice provision was void under section 22 of the Limitations Act, 2002, holding that a contractual notice requirement does not vary or exclude a statutory limitation period, but rather acts as a condition precedent for a cause of action to accrue.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim for damages against the respondents for breach of contract.

The appellant had an agreement with the deceased respondent granting him an option to purchase a valuable painting upon the deceased's death.

The deceased sold the painting before his death, breaching the contract.

The motion judge dismissed the claim on the basis that the appellant failed to prove he had the financial means to exercise the option.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by assuming the role of a trial judge and that there were genuine issues for trial, including the proper option price and whether the appellant needed to show he had the means to purchase the painting.

The appellant appealed an order staying its Ontario proceedings on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The appellant argued the motion judge failed to apply the 'clearly establish' test from Amchem and improperly allowed the avoidance of multiple proceedings to trump other Muscutt factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the heavy burden test and comprehensively weighed all relevant factors in determining that New York was the more appropriate forum.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent did not provide assurance that the appellant would not pay more for hotel rooms than if booked directly.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact.

The appeal was dismissed, subject to deleting one paragraph of the judgment to allow the appellant to be paid its commission, with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a motions judge's decision finding that the parties had reached a settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motions judge's conclusion was amply supported by the email and voicemail correspondence between the lawyers and that she committed no reviewable error.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable on a mortgage and rectifying the principal amount.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that a promissory note evidenced a debt secured by the mortgage assumed by the appellant, and that the appellant had actual or imputed knowledge of the correct amount owing, justifying rectification.

The respondent's cross-appeal on trial costs was dismissed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision declining jurisdiction on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary decision that the appellant failed to demonstrate Ontario was the forum conveniens.

The court also refused leave to appeal the costs award, finding no error in principle.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment, alleging that the loan agreements charged a criminal rate of interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was entitled to conclude that more than $78,000 was advanced, meaning the illegal rate of interest was not proven.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's award of substantial indemnity costs, which were in accordance with the loan agreements.

The Court of Appeal issued an endorsement regarding costs following an appeal.

The respondents were awarded costs of $10,000 against the appellant Wyndham Street Investments Inc. Although the appellant City of Guelph achieved success on the appeal, the court found its conduct played a key role in fostering the dispute.

Consequently, the City was awarded reduced costs of $3,000 against the respondents.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that declared a Committee of Adjustment decision a nullity, invalidated a building permit, and awarded damages for nuisance, trespass, and a new roof.

The Court of Appeal upheld the nullity of the Committee's decision due to lack of notice to the respondents.

However, the Court reversed the finding that the building permit was invalid, noting it dealt with building standards rather than land use.

The Court affirmed that the constructed structure did not comply with the original decision or permit, upheld the damages awards for the roof and punitive damages, and dismissed the appellant's counterclaim for adverse possession of the party wall.

The appellants, plastics moulders who manufactured parts for an insolvent company, sought leave to appeal an order refusing to set aside the ex parte dismissal of their motion claiming entitlement to funds held by the Interim Receiver.

The motion had been dismissed due to the appellants' failure to comply with a timetabling order.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding that the issue of whether the judge had jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte order made pursuant to an earlier order on notice was of significance to the practice, the appeal was not frivolous, and any hindrance to the proceedings would not be undue.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action arising from the birth of a child who suffered severe brain damage due to oxygen deprivation during a breech delivery.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by failing to make an explicit finding on causation, misapprehending expert evidence regarding fetal monitoring, and failing to apply the 'Breech Plus Rule' for the standard of care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the failure to explicitly determine causation did not affect the trial judge's conclusion that the obstetrician met the standard of care.

The court found the trial judge's factual findings regarding the obstetrician's decisions and the rejection of an absolute rule for breech deliveries were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellants challenged an order rejecting their allegation that the respondent had committed perjury in prior trial evidence.

The court held that the taped conversation relied upon did not establish, directly or by reasonable inference, that the respondent had deliberately misled the trial court.

The proposed affidavit evidence was not fresh because it could have been adduced on the motion, and in any event did not provide clear and cogent evidence of perjury or fraud.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.