Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

The appellant, a former medical resident, appealed an order striking her conspiracy claim against two individual defendants as time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in applying the presumption of knowledge under s. 5(2) of the Act before the issue of discoverability was properly developed in the pleadings.

The Court held that a limitation defence should generally be pleaded in a statement of defence, allowing the plaintiff to reply with facts regarding discoverability, rather than being determined on a motion to strike prior to the filing of a defence.

The successful respondent on an appeal sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $93,000 for the action, various motions, and the appeal, in addition to the $75,000 already awarded for the summary judgment motion.

The Court of Appeal applied principles of reasonableness and proportionality, noting that both sides had unnecessarily complicated a simple collection case.

The court reduced the requested costs to $64,500 and then applied a further reduction for overall disproportionality, ultimately awarding the respondent $44,500 in costs.

The City of Windsor appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) award for the expropriation of the respondents' lands.

The OMB had determined the market value of the expropriated lands and awarded injurious affection damages for the remaining lands based on an expropriation scheme dating back to 1983.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the OMB unreasonably failed to consider the negative impact of the 1996 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) on the lands' market value, as the PPS was not part of the expropriation scheme.

Furthermore, the OMB erred in law by assessing injurious affection damages based on the entire expropriation scheme rather than limiting them to the diminution in value caused specifically by the City's acquisition of the lands.

A new hearing was ordered.

The appellants appealed a jury's damages assessment arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The jury awarded $40,000 in general damages (reduced to $10,000 after a statutory deduction) and zero dollars for other claims, despite the appellants claiming over $50,000.

The Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction, as section 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act directs appeals to the Divisional Court when the amount ordered to be paid, or the amount assessed for a dismissed claim, is under $50,000.

The appeal was transferred to the Divisional Court.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action, which was based on a written settlement agreement reached at mediation.

She argued she did not understand the terms and her counsel lacked authority to settle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding she signed the agreement, accepted benefits, and her counsel had apparent authority.

The respondent cross-appealed the motion judge's refusal to enforce the release term of the agreement.

The Court allowed the cross-appeal, varying the order to include an absolute bar to subsequent proceedings.

The appellant failed to appear for the appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $8,000.

The court also directed an authorized officer of the appellant to endorse a cheque payable by the Canada Revenue Agency currently held by the respondent law firm, or alternatively, to pay the respondent the amount of the cheque.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision striking his statement of claim for failing to reveal a reasonable cause of action.

The appellant alleged that a college, with the knowledge of the Ministry, misappropriated his paralegal curriculum.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the pleadings did not reveal a reasonable cause of action against the Ministry and that no amendment could save the claims.

The appeal was dismissed.

The self-represented appellant's personal injury action was dismissed by the trial judge on his own motion before the appellant's evidence-in-chief was completed, on the basis that the evidence was incoherent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while a trial court has inherent jurisdiction to control its own process, this does not extend to dismissing cases without hearing the available evidence and submissions.

The appellant's right to a fair trial was denied.

The Court of Appeal issued an endorsement regarding costs following an appeal.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs fixed at $4,000 for the proceedings in the court below and $4,000 for the appeal, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA), an intervening party in an appeal concerning the constitutional validity of the Agricultural Employees Protection Act, brought a motion for leave to file a factum exceeding thirty pages.

The appellants opposed the motion, while the respondent consented.

The court granted the motion, allowing the OFA to file a factum of up to forty-five pages, noting the significance of the issues for agricultural labour relations and finding that the OFA's perspective would provide added value to the appellate process.

The appellants appealed a decision of the motion judge granting partial summary judgment to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $5,000 to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a partial summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent bank, which was based on the appellant's criminal conviction for fraud relating to the same transactions.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence alleging ineffective assistance by her civil and criminal counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the motion judge and concluding that the fresh evidence lacked a credible basis.

The court held that allowing the appeal would permit an abuse of process by relitigating the summary judgment, the criminal conviction, and the criminal trial.

The appellant appealed a judgment recognizing and enforcing a United States District Court judgment against him as guarantor.

The sole ground of appeal was that the motion judge erred in refusing to grant a stay of enforcement in Ontario pending the final decision of a New Jersey Bankruptcy Court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant had acknowledged owing millions of dollars, the US judgment was final, and the appellant had lost at every juncture in the collateral bankruptcy proceedings, including being refused a stay pending appeal in that court.

The appellant municipality purchased an abandoned railway line and developed it into a trailway.

When adjoining landowners demanded fencing under the Line Fences Act, the municipality passed a by-law designating the trailway as a public highway to exempt itself from the fencing obligation.

The application judge quashed the by-law, finding it was passed in bad faith to avoid the cost of fencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the municipality's appeal, holding that while courts owe deference to municipal decisions, good faith remains a central foundation for the validity of a by-law, and the record supported the finding of bad faith.

The appellants appealed an order of a motion judge that allowed the respondent solicitor to charge a $60,000 premium on top of their hourly rate after successfully negotiating a settlement.

The assessment officer had originally denied the premium because the fee agreement did not contemplate it, the solicitor faced no risk of non-payment, and the solicitor confirmed they would charge their hourly rate even after becoming aware of the windfall.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the assessment officer correctly considered all relevant factors and that the motion judge erred in varying the report.

Following an appeal, the successful appellants sought costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded partial indemnity costs to the appellants for both the motion and the appeal.

The costs awarded to two of the appellants were made payable only upon their satisfaction of a prior judgment, while the costs awarded to the third appellant were made payable within thirty days.

The defendants Garan, Lucow, Miller P.C. and Thomas W. Emery succeeded in their motion for a stay and sought costs.

The Court of Appeal awarded them partial indemnity costs fixed at $4,000, payable jointly and severally by the plaintiffs and the co-defendant Kingsway General Insurance Company.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding liability for occupation rent.

The trial judge had found the respondent's parents liable for occupation rent due to their participation in a conspiracy to acquire assets, but found the respondent daughter was not part of the conspiracy and was merely living with her parents.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the parents, not the daughter, were liable for the occupation rent until the delivery of possession.

Both appeals were dismissed.

Following an appeal and cross-appeal, the successful appellants sought their costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario awarded the appellants costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Finding the submitted bill of costs to be excessive, the court fixed the costs at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant borrowed $500,000 from the respondent under an agreement that effectively charged an interest rate exceeding 60 per cent per annum, violating the criminal interest rate provisions of the Criminal Code.

The application judge found the agreement violated the Criminal Code but applied a 'notional severance' to reduce the interest rate to the legal maximum of 60 per cent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that notional severance is not an available remedy.

Instead, the court applied traditional severance principles, striking out the illegal 4 per cent per month interest provision entirely, while leaving the principal repayment and other valid fees intact.