Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

The appellants sought to certify a class action claiming unpaid overtime on behalf of Investment Advisors and Associate Investment Advisors employed by the respondents.

The motion judge and Divisional Court dismissed the certification motion, finding that eligibility for overtime pay could not be determined as a common issue because it required an individual assessment of each employee's duties, autonomy, and managerial responsibilities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no material misapprehension of evidence and that the lower courts correctly applied the legal principles governing the common issue requirement under s. 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiff RCI entered into an agreement to manufacture and install assembly lines for TMG in Ontario.

TMG later substituted its subsidiary TMC as the purchaser, allegedly providing assurances alongside its bank, Sparkasse, that they would guarantee payment.

When TMC failed to pay, RCI sued TMG and Sparkasse in Ontario for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation.

The motion judge stayed the action, finding no jurisdiction simpliciter and that Ontario was forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter based on the tort and contract occurring in Ontario, the forum selection clauses did not apply to the guarantee claims, and the defendants failed to show Germany was clearly a more appropriate forum.

The appellants successfully appealed a motion judge's decision limiting the scope of their class proceedings based on the Limitations Act.

The Divisional Court, however, refused to award the appellants their costs of the appeal, finding success was divided, and remitted the costs issue to the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on costs, holding that the Divisional Court erred in principle by mischaracterizing the appellants' success and by failing to apply the general rule that the costs of a successful appeal should be awarded to the appellant and not depend on the outcome of a rehearing.

The appellants, a former condominium owner and a former management company, appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against a condominium corporation and its directors for alleged misappropriation of funds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal against the participating defendants, agreeing that the appellants lacked standing because they had no direct interest in the corporation's funds.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the non-participating defendants, as they had not sought summary judgment, and set aside the costs award because it was improperly made on a full indemnity basis without allowing the appellants to respond.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion for leave to amend their statement of claim.

The motion judge had found that the proposed amendments added new causes of action and were statute-barred, giving rise to a presumption of prejudice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the amendments did not add new material facts but simply claimed additional or alternative forms of relief based on the facts already pleaded.

As there was no evidence of non-compensable prejudice, the amendments were permitted.

A law firm acting on a contingency fee basis was discharged by its clients, who retained successor lawyers.

The original law firm sued the successor lawyers for inducing breach of contract and intentional interference with economic relations, alleging they assisted the clients in avoiding payment of fees.

The motion judge struck the claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the statement of claim contained only bald, unsupported assertions of professional misconduct and no facts capable of supporting the alleged causes of action.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing of the appeal.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The appellant sought to appeal an order affirming an interlocutory order that directed him to answer questions on a debtor examination.

The appellant alleged procedural fairness and bias in the proceedings leading to the interlocutory order.

The Court of Appeal held that the order remained interlocutory and subject to the appeal route to the Divisional Court, where leave had already been denied.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed and the respondents cross-appealed from a judgment concerning restitution, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, and assignment/preference issues.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or legal analysis.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed without costs.

The court issued an endorsement to settle the terms of its orders following an appeal.

The court determined that interest on costs should run from September 29, 2004, the date the costs order was made, rather than the date of the main judgment.

The court declined to alter the trial judge's order regarding carriage of the reference, noting it was not argued and should not be modified absent agreement or if affected by the appeal reasons.

The court also declined to cross-reference the orders in the two separate actions, noting the agreement that there can be no double recovery.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring that the appellant Foo was not the beneficial owner of shares in the respondent corporation.

The appellants argued the trial judge improperly relied on extrinsic parol evidence and ignored an entire agreement clause in the initial share exchange agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly considered extrinsic evidence given the problematic nature of the transactions, which included backdated documents, inconsistencies, and unfulfilled underlying purposes.

The court noted that even if the appellants' arguments regarding the initial agreement were accepted, a subsequent acknowledgement would have reversed the transfer anyway.

The appellant tenant terminated a commercial lease, arguing the landlord failed to complete the building in accordance with the schedule.

The trial judge found the tenant acted unreasonably and not in good faith by failing to consider other contractual options, such as completing the work itself and deducting the cost from rent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the liability finding but allowed the appeal on damages in part, reducing the damages award by the $50,000 it would have cost to complete the building.

The cross-appeal on damages was dismissed due to the landlord's failure to mitigate.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that an oral retainer existed between the appellant Mauro and the respondent law firm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the heavy onus on the solicitor to establish an oral retainer was met.

The Court also rejected the argument that an oral retainer is void unless in writing under the Solicitors Act, noting that there was no dispute as to the amount of compensation.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a brief endorsement in this appeal, directing the parties to see the endorsement in companion file C37669 for the disposition.

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

The Court of Appeal varied the order to grant the moving party leave to intervene as an added party pursuant to Rule 13.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting that the assumption that existing parties would protect claims of community use appeared to be in doubt.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

On consent of the parties, the Court of Appeal ordered the appeal withdrawn without costs.

The appellants brought an action in the Superior Court alleging an unconstitutional exercise of discretion under section 114(2) of the Immigration Act regarding the deportation of a parent.

The motion judge declined jurisdiction in favour of the Federal Court.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision, holding that the Federal Court is the proper forum for immigration matters unless it is shown to be ineffective or inappropriate.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.

The plaintiffs brought an action relating to their employment as police officers.

The defendants unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the action on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute was covered by a collective agreement.

The defendants appealed the dismissal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to quash the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to quash, holding that an order dismissing a jurisdictional challenge under Rule 21.01(3)(a) is a final order because it finally disposes of the defendants' right to raise the jurisdictional defence.

The appellant cleaning company appealed the dismissal of its action for breach of contract.

The respondent health club terminated its cleaning contract with the appellant and immediately hired two of the appellant's cleaners, breaching a non-solicitation clause that required payment of one year's compensation.

The trial judge found the clause was an unenforceable penalty and dismissed the action because the appellant claimed no actual damages.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, agreeing the clause was a penalty but finding the appellant suffered provable damages from the loss of its investment in training the cleaners.

The Court awarded $12,600 in damages based on the appellant's lost profit during the six-month training period.

Following an appeal declaring that the insurer owed a duty to defend, the court clarified the costs consequences of that ruling.

The insurer argued that recoverable costs should be limited to the negligence portions of the claim and should exclude intentional tort and punitive damages allegations.

The court rejected that distinction as impractical at the early stage of the action and held that the insured defendants were entitled to a defence without expense to them.

The insured were awarded solicitor and client costs for the defence of the main action and cross-claims, including the third party proceedings, the motion below, and the appeal, until the insurer filed a notice of change of solicitors and assumed the defence.