Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

This is an appeal from a Superior Court judgment that found the appellants liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and pierced the corporate veil.

The underlying dispute involved a three-way agreement for medical gloves, where the appellants, acting as distributors, failed to deliver a significant portion of goods and misrepresented their "factory direct" relationship with the manufacturer.

The trial judge found the appellants engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation in Canada, leading to the plaintiff's losses, and held the individual principals personally liable.

On appeal, the appellants challenged the application of the corporate veil piercing test, the trial judge's distinction between Canada-based and China-based fraud, and the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that fraudulent misrepresentation constitutes "conduct akin to fraud" for piercing the corporate veil, that the trial judge's analysis of distinct frauds was within the pleadings, and that the costs award was a discretionary matter warranting no interference.

This appeal concerned a solicitor's negligence claim where the appellant alleged his former lawyers settled an estates dispute without his instructions, specifically regarding his ability to sue another lawyer involved in the estate.

The trial judge found that the settlement document did not preclude such a claim and that the lawyers had acted within instructions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings that the settlement terms did not prevent subsequent litigation against the third-party lawyer and that the limitation period argument was not a bar to commencing an action.

The court emphasized that the objective intention of the parties, not a default "standard form release" determines the scope of settlement terms.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order, raising two issues: the respondent's failure to produce foundational expert documents and the untimely disclosure of a settlement agreement.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision not to dismiss or stay the action on either ground.

The court upheld the motion judge's finding that the settlement agreement did not "entirely change the litigation landscape" and was not a Pierringer agreement requiring disclosure.

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

This is a costs endorsement following a successful appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal and ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal in the all-inclusive sum of $10,000.

The appellant was also entitled to costs of the motion and cross-motion in the Superior Court, and prima facie entitled to costs of the action below, given the dismissal of the respondent's action.

The court set a schedule for the parties to submit written costs submissions if they could not agree on the quantum of the remaining costs.

The appellant sought to appeal an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment to the Court of Appeal, arguing that a finding of law in the motion judge's reasons regarding relief from forfeiture constituted a final order.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory and that, following recent jurisprudence, an order must contain any finding of law intended to be final to confer jurisdiction on the court.

The court concluded the order was not final and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs' medical malpractice action was dismissed at trial, but the trial judge assessed damages totalling $35,000 across multiple plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Divisional Court, which transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal due to the total assessed amount exceeding its $25,000 monetary jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs moved to quash the appeal and transfer it back to the Divisional Court, arguing that each plaintiff's individual claim was under $25,000.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that all dismissed claims must be added together to determine the total assessed amount for the purpose of appellate jurisdiction under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The parties settled the matter on consent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal without costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding adverse possession and the subsequent costs award based on an offer to settle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge applied the proper test for adverse possession and made factual findings well supported by the record.

The trial judge's view of the offer to settle was also deemed reasonable.

The appellant appealed a confirmation order that credited the respondent mortgagee with $50,825.72 for utilities expenses.

The respondent cross-appealed the disallowance of credits for a $10,000 payment and $5,000 in legal fees.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reducing the utilities credit to $6,204.78 because the respondent failed to establish the reasonableness of the excess payments.

The cross-appeal was dismissed as there was no evidence to support the claimed credits for the bonus or legal fees.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her motion for security for costs, authorizing the respondent to control the conduct of the intended action, and awarding costs to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motions judge's refusal to order security for costs, noting the action was neither vexatious nor frivolous.

The court also upheld the costs award and found the order for directions was a sensible interlocutory order authorized by the Canadian Business Corporations Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The insurer sought an order to preserve the evidence of three expert witnesses regarding the cause of an infant's injuries, anticipating a future motor vehicle accident claim.

Because the infant's limitation period extended to 2021, the insurer feared the experts might become unavailable.

The application judge granted the order under Rule 36.01 and s. 146 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insured's appeal, holding that Rule 36.01 only applies after a proceeding has been commenced, and s. 146 cannot be used to create jurisdiction where none exists.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice refusing to extend the time for compliance with a previous court order.

The Court of Appeal found no ground to interfere with the motion judge's exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal without costs.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding that the respondent's alleged breach of a confidentiality provision in minutes of settlement did not constitute a fundamental breach.

The appellant conceded there was no fundamental breach but sought a remedy analogous to Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 49.09 did not apply because the settlement was reached via minutes of settlement, not an offer to settle, and the rule does not alter substantive contract law.

However, the Court noted the motion judge erred in finding there was no breach at all, preserving the appellant's right to sue for damages for breach of contract.

Amertek Inc. sued the Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC) after losing money on a subcontract to supply fire crash trucks to the U.S. Army.

The trial judge found CCC liable for deceit, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, awarding disgorgement of a re-procurement penalty CCC avoided.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal overturned the trial decision, finding palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's conclusions.

The Court held that CCC's statements about the contract's profitability were not false when made, Amertek did not rely on them, the relationship was purely commercial rather than fiduciary, and there was no breach of contract or unjust enrichment.

The appeal was allowed and Amertek's action was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order of a motion judge who proceeded while an appeal on a related matter was outstanding.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge should not have proceeded, but upheld the substantive result because the related appeal had since been dismissed.

The court varied the order to allow the appellant a two-month period to redeem the mortgage and set aside the costs order from the motion.

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

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal in its court and transferred it to the Divisional Court, awarding costs thrown away to the respondents.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application for rescission of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale and brought a motion to stay the appeal pending a subsequent action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to stay, finding the subsequent action was based on facts known at the time of the original application.

The Court also dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's interpretation of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale regarding the appellants' right of access.

The appellants, including the builder and contractors, appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to the respondent condominium corporation for structural deficiencies in a block back-up wall.

The appellants argued the action was barred by res judicata, issue estoppel, and the six-year limitation period, and challenged the findings of breach of warranty and negligence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the structural defects could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence, and that the warranty clause, interpreted contra proferentem, did not limit claims to one year.

The damages assessment was also upheld.

The appellants appealed the trial judge's conclusion regarding the threshold test in a motor vehicle accident claim.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the threshold test was not met until after February 1994.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $17,500.

The appellants, having successfully appealed a trial decision regarding the enforcement of a Florida judgment, moved for the payment out of court of moneys they had posted as security for costs.

The respondents, who had been granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, moved for a stay of execution of the Court of Appeal's judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellants' motion, finding it just to maintain the status quo and keep the security in court pending the Supreme Court appeal due to the appellants' non-resident status and potential hardship.

The Court granted the respondents' motion for a stay of execution, accepting an irrevocable $1 million guarantee from the Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company as satisfactory security.