Civil Litigation - Defendant - OCA

The appellant sought to set aside a default judgment entered seven years earlier after her pleadings were struck for non-compliance with a costs order imposed as a condition of an adjournment.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding it was not brought promptly or pursued diligently and disbelieving the explanation offered.

On appeal, the court found no error in the motion judge's application of the test under Rule 19.08 for setting aside a default judgment, including findings of prejudice and tarnishing of the administration of justice.

The appellant, Ms. Wong, appealed a lower court's finding of civil fraud against her, which arose from her misrepresentation to Aviva Insurance Company of Canada regarding who was driving during a motor vehicle accident.

The original application sought a declaration that Aviva owed her a defence, which was denied due to policy breach and civil fraud.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that Aviva had suffered a real, albeit unquantified, loss due to Ms. Wong's actions, specifically in terms of its ability to defend the main action, thereby satisfying the loss element of civil fraud.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of an appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario determined that the appeal was not devoid of merit or frivolous, and there was no partial success or misconduct by the respondent.

Consequently, the respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his application against the Law Society of Ontario and various individuals.

The motion judge had found the appellant's pleadings to be scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process due to their rambling, racist, and misogynistic content.

The Court of Appeal, exercising its authority under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissed the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, finding that the appellant's notice of appeal and factum continued the abusive conduct and raised no arguable grounds.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal brought by the Debtor, Wayne Biggar.

The Court found that Mr. Biggar's appeal was brought to the wrong court and constituted an obvious delay tactic.

As a result, the Creditors, Jack Pinder, Victor Dusik, and Innotech Safety Solutions Inc., were awarded substantial indemnity costs fixed at $11,500, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes, payable by Mr. Biggar within five days.

The appellants appealed a partial summary judgment dismissing their action against Enbridge Inc. and Enbridge Solutions Inc. The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by allowing the summary judgment motion to proceed on the eve of a scheduled ten-week trial, causing unnecessary delay and expense.

Furthermore, the Court held that the motion judge erred in concluding there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding Enbridge Inc.'s direct duty of care to the appellants, particularly concerning its public statements and policies on supervising its subsidiaries and contractors.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment and costs order were set aside, and the action was restored for trial.

The appellant, 9383859 Canada Ltd., appealed a lower court decision that dismissed its actions for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The respondents, Kubeskaran Navaratnam, Ronald Lachmansingh, and Marilyn Reiter Nemetz, brought motions to dismiss the appeal due to the appellant's failure to comply with a security for costs order.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted the motions, dismissing the appeal.

The court found that the appellant had not provided compelling reasons for its non-compliance and that it was in the interests of justice to dismiss the appeal, given the appellant's lack of assets and the manifest weakness of the underlying appeal.

The appellant slipped and fell on ice and snow on the driveway of a rented residential property.

He sued the landlord and later added the tenant as a co-defendant.

The motions judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action against both defendants.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal against the tenant, finding the claim was statute-barred because the appellant failed to rebut the presumption that he discovered his claim on the date of the accident.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the landlord, finding genuine issues for trial concerning the interplay between the lease terms, the Occupiers' Liability Act, and the landlord's maintenance obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment, arguing the trial judge failed to consider relevant evidence and erred in his reasoning regarding a house lease and a barn lease.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting it was open to the trial judge to accept the respondent's evidence and to consider the house lease for the purpose of determining the quantum of unjust enrichment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, brought an action in Ontario alleging a conspiracy by the defendants to use fraudulent bankruptcy proceedings in Quebec to defeat the process of the Ontario courts.

The defendants moved to dismiss or stay the action on jurisdictional grounds, and the trustee in bankruptcy moved for a stay because the plaintiff failed to obtain leave under s. 215 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter and was not forum non conveniens.

However, the Court allowed the trustee's appeal in part, holding that the action against the trustee must be stayed until the plaintiff obtains leave from the Quebec Superior Court.

The appellant insurer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent insured statutory accident benefits and $25,000 in damages for mental distress following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer had terminated housekeeping and transportation benefits based on a superficial independent medical examination, ignoring its own occupational therapist's recommendations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the awards for housekeeping benefits, s. 24 assessments, and mental distress, finding that peace of mind is a reasonably contemplated object of an automobile insurance contract.

The court allowed the appeal only to reduce the quantum of transportation benefits from $7,500 to $2,280 due to a lack of evidence supporting the higher amount.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the lower court judge's decision.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to each respondent in the amount of $2,000.

Following an oral decision allowing the appeal, the successful appellant sought its costs at trial, which it had requested in its written materials but omitted from its oral costs submissions.

The Court of Appeal issued a supplementary endorsement granting the appellant its costs at trial, to be assessed if not agreed.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding jurisdiction over its fraud claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the fraud claim was linked to Ontario because the alleged harm was suffered there through the receipt of invoices, and the business dealings were governed by a contract containing an Ontario forum selection and governing law clause.

The appellant appealed an order regarding his alleged failure to comply with the respondent condominium's pet rules.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the interpretation of a 2003 release and the compliance issue were intertwined and should have been submitted to mediation and arbitration under the Condominium Act before the respondent resorted to the court.

The application was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding an enforceable agreement to pay a success fee and assessing damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge did not err in finding an agreement and that her assessment of damages, based on factors such as amounts typically paid to investment bankers, time spent, and value added, was reasonable.

The appellants appealed a judgment finding that the respondent acquired ownership of disputed land through adverse possession.

The parties' predecessors in title had severed a property in 1960 and mistakenly believed the boundary divided a pond equally, contrary to the registered metes and bounds description.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the test of inconsistent use does not apply to adverse possession claims based on mutual mistake.

The court upheld the finding of adverse possession but modified the order to grant an easement rather than a conveyance for a specific portion of the land.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring the respondent the owner of a parcel of land and ordering its conveyance.

The trial judge found that the appellants promised to convey the land to the respondent in exchange for road construction work.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

The Court also held that the agreement was not frustrated by municipal conditions and that written municipal applications signed by the appellant satisfied the requirements of section 4 of the Statute of Frauds.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding triable issues regarding whether the president of Lason Canada had a duty to disclose off-balance sheet payments and whether he participated in including tailwind revenues, both of which allegedly inflated the EBITDA calculation.

The summary judgment was set aside and the motion dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that found they had overvalued inventory in a share purchase agreement and ordered them to repay the purchase price.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the inventory was overvalued but found the trial judge erred in calculating damages by failing to deduct a tax benefit and settlement proceeds received by the purchaser.

The Court reduced the purchaser's damages to $186,781.

The Court also allowed the appellants' counterclaim for $300,000 on an earn-out promissory note, setting off the purchaser's damages against this amount.

As a result, the personal action against the appellant guarantor was dismissed.