Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

The appellants, a real estate agent and brokerage, appealed a trial judge's order requiring them to pay damages to their former clients, the respondents.

The trial judge found that the appellants negligently misrepresented the location of a proposed development, leading the respondents to enter an agreement of purchase and sale and forfeit a $120,000 deposit in a settlement with the developer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings that the misrepresentation was negligent (not requiring expert evidence for a non-technical matter) and that the respondents' damages were caused by the misrepresentation.

The court rejected the appellants' arguments that the respondents should have completed the purchase or failed to mitigate their losses.

The respondent obtained a New York judgment requiring the appellant to deliver a painting pursuant to a contract of sale.

The respondent successfully moved in Ontario to enforce the New York judgment, and was awarded substantial indemnity costs based on the appellant's conduct in the New York litigation.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the enforcement order, finding that the appellant had attorned to the New York court's jurisdiction by advancing substantive defences on the merits in that forum.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, holding that the scale of costs should be determined by the appellant's conduct in the Ontario proceeding, not the foreign litigation, and substituted an award of partial indemnity costs.

The appellant intended to bring a class action for secondary market misrepresentation under the Securities Act against confidential sources quoted in a newspaper article about a leveraged buyout.

The appellant sought a Norwich order to compel the journalist and newspaper to disclose the sources' identities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that while the appellant met the threshold for a Norwich order, the respondents satisfied the Wigmore test for journalist-source privilege.

The public interest in protecting the confidential sources outweighed the public interest in the appellant's weak proposed action.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's approval of a settlement entered into by the Public Guardian and Trustee as her litigation guardian, as well as the approval of legal fees.

The Court of Appeal found ample basis on the record to support the motion judge's conclusions and noted there was no admissible medical evidence to support an order to continue the proceeding without the litigation guardian.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The respondent on appeal brought a motion for security for costs of the appeal.

The moving party had successfully applied to enforce Russian arbitration awards against the appellant in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that a respondent on appeal cannot rely on Rule 61.06(1)(b) to obtain security for costs against a defendant/appellant, as no party should have to give security simply to defend itself.

Furthermore, the moving party could not use the 'other good reason' provision in Rule 61.06(1)(c) to bypass this restriction.

The appellant appealed an order striking portions of its statement of claim and restricting leave to amend.

On consent, the order was amended to preserve a misrepresentation claim against two defendants.

The Court of Appeal also narrowed a restriction on amending the claim, holding that the appellant was only precluded from pleading facts that would amount to a collateral attack on a prior approval decision, rather than all facts known prior to that decision.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed, upholding the motion judge's decisions to strike references to settlement discussions and to refuse leave to amend an oppression claim.

The appellant sued an Assistant Crown Attorney for defamation after the respondent provided incorrect information about the appellant's criminal record to another Crown Attorney during a bail hearing.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding the action was statute-barred and protected by qualified and absolute privilege, with no evidence of malice to defeat the privileges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing there was no genuine issue for trial regarding malice and that absolute privilege applied to communications made in respect of court proceedings.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the motions judge.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the motions judge and dismissed the appeal, fixing costs at $10,000 inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondent suffered a 'serious impairment' under s. 267.5(5)(b) of the Insurance Act following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misapplied the threshold test by relying on a previous appellate endorsement that allegedly lowered the standard to only require an effect on the enjoyment of life.

The Court of Appeal clarified that its previous endorsement did not modify the established test, which requires a substantial interference with the ability to perform usual daily activities or regular employment.

Finding no error in the trial judge's application of the law or appreciation of the evidence, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a decision of the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the appellants failed to disclose a defence on the merits.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact could not be successfully challenged and precluded the application of the legal principles relied upon by the appellant.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing a defamation claim against police and media respondents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the words in question could not be read as defamatory and reported only true facts.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal the costs order below was refused.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondents.

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

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the trial judge dismissing the action.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's conclusion based on the record and dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $12,500.

The appellants appealed the assessment of a court-appointed receiver's fees and disbursements, including those of its solicitors.

They argued the motion judge exhibited bias, erred in precluding cross-examination of the receiver, and erred in finding the fees fair and reasonable.

The Court of Appeal found no reasonable apprehension of bias.

While the court noted that a receiver's accounts should ideally be verified by affidavit to allow for cross-examination, it held that the questioning permitted by the motion judge was an adequate substitute in this case.

The court upheld the receiver's fees but allowed the appeal in part, remitting the solicitors' accounts for reassessment because the motion judge failed to give them separate consideration.

The appellants appealed a judgment dismissing their claims for damages after the appellant slipped and fell in her apartment building's parking lot.

They argued the trial judge erred in admitting hospital and ambulance records regarding the mechanism of the fall, allowing them to be used as prior inconsistent statements, and in instructing the jury on the standard of care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the records were properly admitted as circumstantial evidence of prior inconsistent statements and the jury instructions on reasonable care were appropriate.

The appellant, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces reserve, was injured during his duties and received a disability pension under the Pension Act.

He subsequently sued the Crown.

The motion judge dismissed the action, finding it was barred by s. 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, which precludes claims against the Crown if a pension is payable in respect of the same injury.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Sarvanis v. Canada, which confirmed that pensions granted under the Pension Act foreclose actions under s. 9.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action against a corporate officer and director.

The motion judge had dismissed the action on the grounds that the statement of claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and that there was no genuine issue for trial regarding negligent misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the statement of claim did plead sufficient facts to support the claim and that there were genuine issues for trial on the evidentiary record.

The appellants appealed a fact-driven trial decision.

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

The respondent cross-appealed the disposition of costs, seeking full solicitor and client costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the cross-appeal, finding that special circumstances, including the small proportion of the mortgage collection claim relative to the overall litigation, justified the refusal to award full costs.

The appellants challenged orders refusing to set aside a default judgment.

The Court of Appeal held that both motion judges properly exercised their discretion in assessing prejudice, delay, and procedural fairness.

The court accepted that the insurer had recourse against its insured under s. 258 of the Insurance Act and found no basis to interfere with the conclusion that setting aside the judgment would cause greater prejudice to the respondents.

The appeals were dismissed with costs.