Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

The parties entered into minutes of settlement to resolve a business dispute.

The settlement required the respondent to produce business records to an accountant, who had to be satisfied with the production before the appellant advanced settlement funds.

The appellant refused to advance funds, arguing the accountant was not satisfied with the sufficiency of the records.

The motion judge granted summary judgment enforcing the settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the record amply supported the motion judge's conclusion that the accountant was satisfied with the production.

The City of Ottawa appealed a trial judgment that found it liable for negligent misrepresentation to Charlesfort Developments Limited.

Charlesfort claimed the City failed to accurately inform it about a water main in an easement during a rezoning process, leading to significant project delays and increased costs for a condominium development.

The Court of Appeal allowed the City's appeal, holding that the City did not owe Charlesfort a private law duty of care.

The Court clarified that the City's undertaking in processing a rezoning application was to fulfill its statutory duty in the public interest, not to protect the developer's economic interests or assure project viability.

The appellants, Xundong Qin and Cenith Air Inc., sued the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) and three of its employees for malicious prosecution after the OSC's allegations against them were dismissed.

The respondents moved to strike the claim, arguing issue estoppel applied due to a prior Superior Court order by Pattillo J. that continued a freeze order, finding a "serious issue to be tried." The motion judge granted the strike.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the "serious issue to be tried" standard for continuing a freeze order is a lower threshold than "reasonable and probable cause" required for malicious prosecution.

Therefore, the issue of reasonable and probable cause was not "necessarily bound up" in Pattillo J.'s decision, and issue estoppel did not apply.

The matter was remitted to the Superior Court.

The appellants challenged the dismissal of their negligence claim arising from alleged tingle voltage in a barn said to have caused dairy herd production losses and the loss of a farm operation.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in invoking the material contribution test, because the governing causation analysis was the but for test as explained in Clements, but found the error non-dispositive since causation failed even under the more lenient framework.

Deferring to the trial judge's detailed factual findings and assessment of competing expert evidence, the court upheld the conclusion that tingle voltage was not proved to be a contributing cause of the production issues on a balance of probabilities.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, with costs to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment ordering the sale of a farm property and a subsequent order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the summary judgment, agreeing that financial imperatives required the property to be sold.

The Court allowed the appeal in part regarding the second order, permitting the appellant to amend his claim, except for asserting a claim for a vesting order or proprietary remedy.

A stay on an order for exclusive interim possession was continued with conditions.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiffs obtained a judgment against a bankrupt property maintenance company for injuries sustained in a slip and fall.

They subsequently brought an action against the company's insurer under s. 132 of the Insurance Act.

The insurer argued it was not liable because the insured failed to provide notice of the claim.

The Court of Appeal held that notice provided by a co-defendant property owner was effective under the policy's liability conditions, which allowed notice to be given 'by or for' the insured.

Alternatively, the court found the plaintiffs were entitled to relief from forfeiture under s. 129 of the Insurance Act, as the failure to give timely notice constituted imperfect compliance and the insurer suffered no prejudice.

The appellant appealed an order requiring him to vacate the respondent's property, where he had been living and working without legal right.

The trial judge had granted a grace period for the appellant to remove his personal property, which he failed to do.

The appellant argued his property and Charter rights were breached.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the trial judge and noting the appellant's problems were of his own making.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their request to stay a contempt proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the material before the motion judge did not support the request, particularly as there was no evidence that an application for an extension of time for leave to appeal the underlying interlocutory injunction order could succeed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment declaring that the parties had entered into a binding agreement for the sale of the appellant's interest in certain companies.

The appellant argued that the parties had not agreed on all essential terms and did not intend the agreement in principle to be binding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the unaddressed details were not essential terms and that there was ample evidence supporting the trial judge's conclusion that the parties intended to be bound.

The appellant roofing company appealed a declaration that its insurer had no duty to defend an action brought by a motorcyclist who was injured when a ladder flew off the appellant's truck.

The insurer denied coverage based on an automobile exclusion in a rider to the commercial general liability policy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the insurer was entitled to rely on the rider, which excluded coverage for bodily injury with respect to which a motor vehicle liability policy is required by law to be in effect.

The court held that loading and storing the ladder constituted the use or operation of an automobile, and the underlying claim did not allege concurrent non-automobile-related negligence.

The appellant sued her former employer for wrongful dismissal arising from a 2001 transfer of the business.

After the limitation period expired, she sought to amend her statement of claim to allege constructive dismissal based on a significant salary reduction in 1999.

The motion judge dismissed the motion to amend.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under Rule 26.01, the expiry of a limitation period creates a presumption of prejudice to the responding party.

The moving party must rebut this presumption by demonstrating special circumstances.

Because the proposed amendment advanced a fundamentally different and unrelated claim, and no special circumstances were shown, the amendment was properly denied.

Following an appeal, the parties made written submissions regarding costs.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the respondent's submissions and awarded her costs of the appeal fixed at $1,621.08, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant closed an access road leading to the respondents' landlocked cottage properties after the respondents refused to pay an increased annual user fee.

The appellant argued it could close the road without a court order under the Road Access Act because the respondents had 'alternate road access' via an unopened municipal road allowance or by paying the requested fee for the existing road.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that 'alternate road access' requires an existing, different road, and neither an unopened road allowance nor the same road subject to a fee qualifies.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision staying its action for breach of contract and negligence on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that West Virginia, where the respondent processed the steel coils, was the more convenient forum.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal the costs order and reduced the motion judge's costs award from $36,000 to $15,000, finding the original amount unreasonable for a two-hour motion.

The plaintiffs appealed a jury's assessment of damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, arguing the award was perverse and that the trial judge's threshold determination under the Insurance Act bound the jury on causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury was entitled to reject the plaintiff's position on causation based on the evidence.

The Court also held that a trial judge's threshold determination does not constitute a binding finding of fact on causation for the jury.

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 from a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice and a subsequent costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge had thoroughly canvassed the appellants' objections to a master's report and made no palpable and overriding error of fact or error of law.

Costs of the appeal were fixed at $25,000.

The appellant appealed the judgment of Justice Louise Gauthier.

On consent of the parties, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal without costs.

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 a fraudulent conveyance action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the threshold necessary to shift the burden of explanation to the defendant, as set out in Koop v. Smith, had not been reached due to a lack of evidence regarding other creditors or inability to meet debts.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.