Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

The appellants appealed a summary trial decision that dismissed their breach of contract claims and ordered them to pay for conversion.

The trial judge found no overarching contract, only vehicle-by-vehicle agreements, and thus no obligation for the respondent to take vehicles with deposits.

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

The respondent was assaulted by the appellant and his brothers at the butcher shop where they worked.

At trial, the appellant admitted to the assault but argued the respondent provoked it.

The trial judge rejected the provocation defence, made favourable credibility findings for the respondent, and found the brothers were joint tortfeasors.

On appeal, the appellant challenged these factual findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to disturb the trial judge's credibility assessments or factual conclusions regarding provocation and joint liability.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her objection to a Master's report that found her mortgage was a fraudulent conveyance and preference, and therefore void.

The appellant argued the respondent was estopped from challenging the mortgage due to delay and acquiescence, and that the delay gave rise to laches.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the respondent did not know the facts underlying the fraudulent mortgage until discovery, and that laches requires both delay and prejudice, which the appellant failed to establish.

The moving parties sought directions on whether they required leave to appeal an order made by a CCAA judge dismissing their jurisdictional challenge to a contract dispute motion brought by the responding parties.

The moving parties also sought a stay of the contract dispute motion pending their appeal.

The responding parties brought a cross-motion to expedite the hearing of the leave to appeal motion.

The Court of Appeal held that the CCAA judge's order was 'made under' the CCAA, meaning leave to appeal was required under s. 13.

The Court expedited the leave to appeal motion and granted a stay of the contract dispute motion pending the determination of the leave motion, finding that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following the appeals in Westerhof v. Gee Estate and McCallum v. Baker.

The court ordered that the costs of the appeal in McCallum v. Baker be awarded to the respondent, fixed in the amount of $60,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision, arguing the motion judge erred in accepting the respondent's expert evidence on the interpretation of the commercial reasonableness standard under the Uniform Commercial Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge was entitled to accept the expert's opinion, especially since the appellants chose not to put forward any expert evidence of their own.

The court also rejected arguments regarding the expert's alleged bias.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claims for oppression and civil conspiracy against the respondents.

The appellants alleged the respondents unlawfully provided their share ownership information to a third party, leading to an injunction that froze their shares.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the respondents' conduct was not oppressive, there was no intent to injure to support a conspiracy claim, and the appellants suffered no damages because they had consented to the injunction.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his negligent misrepresentation claims against former directors, officers, and consultants of a corporation in which he invested.

The motion judge found the claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the appellant knew the material facts more than two years before asserting the claims and that the proposed amendments advanced new causes of action unconnected to the original pleadings.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a successful appeal, the appellant sought costs for the appeal, a motion to set aside an order, and the underlying motion before the lower court.

The respondents did not oppose the costs of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal awarded the appellant costs for all three matters, totaling $49,278.09.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision in favour of the respondent bank regarding a loan default.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence, including an affidavit from a signing officer, to argue the loan was intended for a company rather than him personally.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence was available prior to the summary judgment hearing and lacked sufficient detail to be meaningful.

The court held the appellant failed to put his best foot forward, and the motion judge made no errors in granting summary judgment.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action for non-compliance with the governing limitation period.

She argued that the action should proceed because the motion judge did not find actual prejudice to the defendants, despite the statement of claim being served more than two years late.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge properly considered the relevant factors, including prejudice and the complete lack of explanation for the delay by the appellant's solicitor.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding they breached a consulting agreement by playing both ends against the middle and preventing Royal Trust from advancing funds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings were supported by the pleadings and evidence, and the appellants could not rely on the failure to advance funds when they were instrumental in bringing about that result.

The self-represented appellant appealed the dismissal of his action.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant had repeatedly failed to comply with the Rules, ignored court orders, and misused court processes.

Finding no reason to interfere with the lower court's decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent.

The appellant solicitors appealed a motion judge's order regarding the assessment of their accounts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was a single retainer covering multiple matters, making the earlier bills interim rather than final.

Because the order for assessment was obtained within thirty days of the final bill, it properly applied to all accounts.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also refused.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to set aside a default judgment entered against him personally.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's factual findings that the appellant was aware he was being sued personally, failed to move promptly, and did not adequately explain the delay.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action.

The Court of Appeal held that a failed Rule 20 motion for summary judgment by a plaintiff does not preclude a later Rule 21 motion by a defendant, as the issues are different and no issue estoppel arises.

Furthermore, a previous panel of the court had already determined the appellant lacked legal capacity to sue the respondents.

As the current action involved the same parties and factual allegations, it was an attempt to re-litigate the issues and was barred by res judicata.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The respondent obtained summary judgment against the appellants for an alleged loan under the simplified rules.

The appellants appealed, arguing that the statement of claim only pleaded a single loan of $22,750 (U.S.), which they claimed to have repaid, rather than a revolving line of credit as found by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the summary judgment, finding that the trial judge erred by granting judgment based on a revolving line of credit that was not properly pleaded in the statement of claim.

Following an appeal, the court received written submissions to fix costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The appellants requested no costs be awarded, which the court rejected.

The court reviewed the costs claimed by the respondents—the Interim Receiver, Cominco Ltd., and Yukon Energy Corporation—and found some of the claimed fees to be excessive.

The court fixed the costs for each respondent at reduced amounts, inclusive of disbursements and applicable GST.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim for damages under a fidelity policy of insurance.

The trial judge had concluded the policy was void due to misrepresentation, imputed the employee's knowledge to the appellant, and found constructive knowledge of the fraud.

The Court of Appeal found it necessary to address only the constructive knowledge ground.

It held there was ample evidence that the appellant had constructive knowledge because the fraud would have been revealed by reviewing attached financial statements, payroll records, and related statements.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed on consent.

The court made no costs order.

The endorsement contains no substantive analysis.