Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

The court-appointed receiver brought a motion seeking a declaration that the debtor had no automatic right of appeal from an Approval and Vesting Order under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and an order denying leave to appeal.

The debtor argued it had an automatic right of appeal under s. 193(a) or (c) of the BIA, or alternatively sought leave under s. 193(e).

The Court of Appeal held that the debtor had no automatic right of appeal, as the order did not affect future rights or result in a direct loss exceeding $10,000.

The Court also denied leave to appeal, finding the proposed appeal lacked merit, did not raise an issue of general importance, and would unduly hinder the insolvency proceedings.

The appellant, a refugee in Canada, sued his former Kuwaiti employers and others for damages arising from alleged torture and conspiracy in Kuwait.

The motion judge stayed the action for want of jurisdiction, finding no real and substantial connection to Ontario and declining to apply the forum of necessity doctrine.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge made no error in principle and his discretionary decision, based on a lack of cogent evidence supporting the appellant's claims of exceptional circumstances, was entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed from orders made over ten years prior determining equalization, child support, and spousal support in a family law proceeding.

The appellant had failed to appear at trial in 2007 and at a subsequent motion to set aside the trial order in 2008.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence demonstrating the appellant's serious mental health issues, including PTSD and major depressive disorder, which rendered her incapable of attending the proceedings.

The court found that the appellant's absence was excused and that procedural fairness required setting aside the trial and motion orders.

The court ordered a new trial to determine the issues of equalization and support, set aside a garnishment order, and required the respondent to return garnished funds with interest.

The appellant, a self-represented litigant, appealed a trial judgment granting sole custody of three children to the respondent with specified access rights, ordering child support of $622 per month based on an imputed income of $31,600, and requiring an equalization payment of $211,220.17.

The appeal raised issues concerning access time for religious and festive occasions, the inclusion and valuation of a Pakistan pension for income imputation purposes, and the inclusion and valuation of Pakistan property and jewelry for equalization purposes.

The appellant also alleged trial judge bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact and no evidence of bias.

The appellant, New Era Development (2011) Inc., appealed a summary judgment decision granting fees of $400,000 to the respondent mortgage broker, Rescon Financial Corporation, and dismissing New Era's counterclaim.

The dispute concerned whether Rescon was entitled to commission upon producing an acceptable commitment letter or only upon actual funding.

The motion judge found the commitment letter acceptable, rejected New Era's defences based on fiduciary duty breach, negligence, and statutory violations, and dismissed the counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision on all grounds, finding no genuine issues requiring trial.

The appellant appealed from a Superior Court order dismissing his action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The motion judge found that the action amounted to an attempt to relitigate unsuccessful proceedings before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canada Labour Code adjudicator, Federal Court, and Federal Court of Appeal, with bald allegations of fraud, obstruction of justice, blackmail, and criminal conduct lacking factual foundation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no merit in the appellant's three grounds of appeal: unlawful application of Rule 2.1.01(1), malicious use of language by the motion judge, and alleged infringement of Charter rights.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for a declaration that she holds a permanent easement over part of the respondent's property.

The two parties own neighbouring houses in Toronto.

The appellant claimed a right of easement over the passageway between the properties based on historical use by the former owner of her property for cleaning and repairs.

The application judge found that the historical use was permissive and infrequent, not "as of right" as required for a prescriptive easement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the application judge's characterization of the occasional permissive use and affirming that the threshold for establishing an easement is high.

An appeal from a trial judgment concerning a construction contract dispute.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's findings regarding responsibility for drywall deficiencies and the labour rate credited to the appellant.

The appellate court found the trial judge's determination that the appellant assumed responsibility for drywall installed by third parties was fully supported by evidence.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the labour rate issue.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision that reversed a Small Claims Court judgment finding wrongful termination.

The respondent employer terminated the appellant, a probationary employee, before completion of six months of employment without just cause.

The trial judge had disregarded the probationary clause in the employment contract, finding it was not properly communicated.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's reversal, holding that the probationary term was valid and unambiguous, and that probationary employees may be terminated without notice during the probationary period if the employer makes a good faith determination of unsuitability, provided the employee was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to demonstrate suitability.

The appellant received statutory notice as required by the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for breach of contract and awarding $11 million in damages to the respondent, who had purchased the action from a bankrupt IT company.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant's representative had actual authority to bind the company to the contract.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding damages, finding the trial judge erred by assessing damages as of the end of a five-year business plan rather than the date of the breach.

Applying a discounted cash flow analysis as of the date of breach, the Court reduced the damages award to $1.3 million.

The appellant sued the Government of Nunavut in Ontario for wrongful dismissal.

The motion judge found no real and substantial connection to Ontario and that Nunavut was the more appropriate forum.

On appeal, the appellant argued Ontario was a 'forum of necessity' because returning to Nunavut would trigger severe mental illness symptoms.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the appellant's mental health challenges did not rise to the exceptional level required for the forum of necessity doctrine, noting that accommodations could be sought in a Nunavut court.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order dismissing its claim for breach of a non-competition covenant.

The appellant alleged the respondent, as a director of a holding company, supplied a refrigerated truck to a competitor for free.

The motion judge found evidence that rental payments were being made for the truck, which permitted the rejection of the appellant's claim.

The Court of Appeal found no error and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant failed to appear for the hearing of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $1,500.

The appellant appealed an order enforcing a monetary judgment from a Michigan court.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant had attorned to the jurisdiction of the Michigan court, which gave the Ontario court jurisdiction to enforce the judgment.

The court also found that the narrow exceptions to enforcement set out in Beals v. Saldanha did not apply.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order granting the respondents $59,379.91 owing on a first mortgage and possession of the property.

The motion judge found no genuine issue for trial, as the mortgage had matured and remained in default.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding no evidence that the mortgage was renewed or that post-dated cheques for the following year were negotiated.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment, arguing the motion judge erred in calculating the amounts owing under a loan and guarantee.

Both parties agreed that calculation errors occurred and consented to rectifying the judgment amounts for two of the guarantors.

The Court of Appeal rectified the judgment accordingly and ordered a trial on the discrete issue of whether one guarantor's liability was limited to 25 percent of the outstanding loans.

The appellant insurer appealed a trial judgment granting the respondent relief from forfeiture after the insured breached statutory condition 4(1) of the Insurance Act by driving with a suspended licence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 129 of the Insurance Act applies only to matters concerning proof of loss, not coverage.

Furthermore, the court found that even if section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act applied, the insured's conduct in ignoring registered letters from the Ministry of Transportation demonstrated wilful blindness and was incompatible with relief from forfeiture.

The judgment was varied to reduce the payable amount.

The appellant, the Federal Trade Commission, appealed a judgment finding it was properly served with a notice of application under the State Immunity Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no evidence capable of supporting the conclusion that the appellant was an 'agency of a foreign state' under section 2 of the Act.

Furthermore, even if service had been proper, the respondents obtained judgment before the mandatory sixty-day period under section 10 of the Act had expired.

The judgment was set aside.

The appellant, Starr Toof, appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for negligent misrepresentation in connection with the sale of a used printing press to the respondent, J B Printing Limited.

During a pre-purchase inspection, Starr Toof's representatives made positive statements about the press's condition and failed to disclose damage to an important component.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge applied the correct legal principles and that his findings of mixed fact and law regarding duty of care, reasonable reliance, and misrepresentation were entitled to deference absent palpable and overriding error.

A dissenting opinion argued that no duty of care existed and that the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors of fact.

In an addendum on costs following an appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario awarded costs to the respondents.

The costs were fixed on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $6,687.50 all inclusive.