Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order enforcing a settlement agreement under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant argued he had not authorized his former lawyers to settle the matter for $137,500.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that an agreement had been reached and that the dispute over the scope of the lawyers' authority was not a sufficient reason to set aside the settlement.

The court also dismissed the appellant's motion to introduce fresh evidence and dismissed the appeal.

Two separate representative actions were brought on behalf of approximately 800 terminated employees of bankrupt meat processing companies.

The first action (Caetano) was brought by a union representative on behalf of 700 unionized employees; the second (Abreu) was brought by non-union employees on behalf of approximately 100 non-unionized employees.

The defendants moved to stay the Caetano action on jurisdictional grounds and to strike the representative elements of both actions as statute-barred.

The motion judge stayed the Caetano action and struck the representative aspect of the Caetano action but allowed the Abreu action to proceed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Caetano appeal and allowed the Abreu appeal, striking the representative aspect of the Abreu action as well.

The appellant Town appealed a summary judgment order granted in favour of the respondent commercial tenant.

The Town had evicted the tenant for rent arrears and later sold a router left on the premises, applying the funds to charity.

The Town brought a motion for summary judgment arguing the limitation period had expired, but the motion judge granted summary judgment in favour of the tenant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge had the power to grant judgment for the non-moving party and correctly held the limitation period began when the tenant learned of the sale.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for an assessment of his former solicitor's bills under the Solicitors Act.

The application judge found no 'special circumstances' to justify assessing the 12 paid bills, which were rendered over four years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or unreasonable result in the application judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to rebut the presumption that payment indicated acceptance of the accounts.

The appellants were substantially successful on their appeal, which resulted in a new trial on certain issues.

They sought costs of $52,994.52 on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent argued for a reduced amount of $25,000 due to divided success.

The Court of Appeal agreed the appellants were substantially successful but applied a minor reduction for divided success, fixing costs at $45,000 all-inclusive.

The costs of the first trial were remitted to the judge hearing the new trial.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action for non-compliance with the Limitations Act, 2002.

She argued the respondent should be precluded from relying on the limitation period defence due to fraudulent concealment and misrepresentations intended to induce her to forebear from enforcing her rights.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that fraudulent concealment was not pleaded at trial and the record did not support a conscious plan to deceive.

Furthermore, any oral acknowledgments of the debt could not revive it, as the Act requires acknowledgments to be in writing.

The appellant surveyors prepared a reference plan that incorrectly portrayed a right of way as a straight line, failing to show a curve that circumvented a rock outcrop.

The reference plan was deposited on title.

A dispute arose between the neighbouring property owners over the use of the road.

The surveyors brought a motion to rectify the reference plan under section 160 of the Land Titles Act.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, holding that the registered title was indefeasible.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that a reference plan does not independently create an interest in land and that the court has jurisdiction to rectify the boundaries of the right of way.

The appellant, CAA Insurance Company (Ontario), appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for the reasons given by the motion judge.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $12,000.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a claim for negligent investigation against the respondent, alleging the respondent provided false information to the police leading to the appellant's wrongful arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it plain and obvious that no duty of care existed, as it was not reasonably foreseeable that the police would arrest the appellant without independently determining reasonable and probable grounds.

A cross-appeal regarding a conspiracy claim was allowed, dismissing the claim with leave to amend to plead better particulars.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent 34 months' notice (30 months base plus 4 months Wallace damages) for wrongful dismissal.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in awarding a base notice period in excess of 24 months without exceptional circumstances, reducing the base period to 24 months.

The court upheld the 4-month Wallace extension due to the appellants' bad faith conduct during the dismissal.

The court also varied the prejudgment interest award, holding that interest should be calculated on an installment basis rather than a lump sum basis for the period during which salary continuance payments were made.

The respondent's vehicle became stuck on a country road on a cold winter night.

She left the vehicle to seek help, became disoriented, fell into a river, and suffered severe frostbite requiring amputations.

She claimed statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the injuries were not directly caused by the use or operation of an automobile.

The motions judge ruled in favour of the respondent.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that while the respondent met the purpose test, she failed the causation test because the use of the vehicle was not a direct cause of her injuries due to numerous intervening acts.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted under the simplified procedure rule.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge understood and properly applied the correct test for summary judgment.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellants sought leave to appeal a judgment for costs.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle to justify granting leave.

Leave to appeal was denied and the appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $8,500.

The defendants appealed an order consolidating two proposed class actions and substituting a new representative plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that the order was interlocutory because it did not dispose of any substantive rights between the parties.

As an interlocutory order, the appeal properly lies to the Divisional Court with leave, not to the Court of Appeal.

The parties, two dentists, practised together under a Cost Sharing Agreement containing an arbitration clause.

After their relationship broke down, the respondent sued for breach of contract, conversion, and malicious prosecution.

The appellant moved for a stay of proceedings under s. 7 of the Arbitration Act, which the motions judge dismissed on the basis that the malicious prosecution claim fell outside the arbitration agreement and the matters could not easily be separated.

The Court of Appeal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal because a finding that a dispute falls outside an arbitration agreement is not barred by s. 7(6).

The Court upheld the motions judge's decision, finding no error in the refusal to grant a partial stay.

The appellant solicitor appealed an order requiring him to fulfill a solicitor's undertaking to repay a $50,000 loan to the respondent from mortgage financing.

The appellant breached the undertaking by paying the funds directly to the debtor.

The appellant argued the debt had already been paid by the debtor but provided only an affidavit based on information and belief, contrary to Rule 39.01(5).

The applications judge refused an adjournment to summons the debtor and ordered the appellant to pay the sum plus prejudgment interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that solicitors must be strictly accountable for their undertakings and noting the lack of admissible evidence supporting the appellant's claims.

The appellant submitted the lowest acceptable bid in response to a Request for Proposals for a computer cabling project.

Due to a budget reduction, the respondent school board negotiated with the three lowest bidders instead of solely with the appellant, ultimately awarding the contract to another bidder.

The appellant sued for breach of the duty of fairness and good faith.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the board was permitted to conduct wider negotiations and that any differing treatment during negotiations did not affect the outcome.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his statement of claim against a physician who prepared a medical report for a statutory accident benefits arbitration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that statements made in quasi-judicial proceedings, including physicians' reports prepared for such hearings, are protected by absolute privilege.

The Court also reiterated that there is no independent civil cause of action for a breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The self-represented appellant appealed a trial judgment dismissing his action for solicitor negligence against his former tax counsel.

The trial judge had found that the respondent counsel met the appropriate standard of care, was properly qualified, and did not err in the preparation or prosecution of the tax appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the evidence fully supported the trial judge's conclusions.

The appellant client appealed the dismissal of his motion for summary judgment against his former solicitor.

The appellant sought a declaration that his liability for legal fees was capped at $2,500 per month, which the solicitor disputed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the conflicting positions regarding the retainer agreement raised issues of credibility and documentary interpretation that could not be resolved on a summary judgment motion.

The matter was directed to proceed before an assessment judge.