Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

The appellant, a Senior Financial Advisor employed by CIBC, appealed a motion judge's decision striking portions of his Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim alleging defamation, libel, and negligence against CIBC and CIBC Securities.

The motion judge found that the alleged defamatory statements were not contained in the documents referenced, or alternatively, were not published by the respondents.

The Microsoft Teams chat could not constitute publication for defamation purposes.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the analysis of the documents and dismissing the appeal with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed an application judge's order dismissing his application for a declaration regarding the allocation of surplus funds from a power of sale.

The application had been dismissed without prejudice to the appellant's right to bring a fresh application with proper notice and evidence.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory and thus the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the order determined no substantive rights and was therefore interlocutory.

The appeal was quashed.

This appeal was dismissed as abandoned due to the appellants' failure to appear.

The respondent was awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant, Sarfraz Malik, appealed a Superior Court decision that denied his motion to amend his statement of claim to add Family Law Act (FLA) s. 61 claims for losses arising from injuries to his children, more than four years after the accident.

The Superior Court judge had reversed a Master's decision, finding that s. 61 FLA claims constitute a distinct statutory cause of action, subject to the Limitations Act, and not merely a claim for additional damages within an existing negligence action.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court's decision, holding that a s. 61 FLA claim is a separate statutory cause of action that was statute-barred in this case, thereby dismissing the appeal.

The appellant moved to review an order refusing to restore his motion to review a previous order that refused to extend the time for a motion for leave to appeal from the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding it to be the latest in a series of frivolous and meritless interlocutory motions.

The appellant provided no reasonable explanation for his lengthy delays, and there was no merit to his underlying request for leave to appeal.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to serve and file a notice of appeal from an order dismissing her action for non-compliance with a discovery plan.

The respondents opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion for a stay or security for costs.

The Court of Appeal applied the five-factor test for extending time and found that the moving party had no intention to appeal within the time limit, offered no explanation for the delay, and the appeal lacked merit.

Given the moving party's history of non-compliance with court orders and abuse of process, the justice of the case did not favour an extension.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The self-represented appellant's action was dismissed for delay in January 2013.

Eighteen months later, he brought a motion but failed to appear, resulting in its dismissal.

On appeal, the appellant sought judgment and damages of $30,000.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the motion judge's decision and noting it could not address the merits of the underlying claim.

The appellant appealed an order striking out his claim without leave to amend and dismissing his action for malicious prosecution and other claims.

He also sought an adjournment and to admit fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the adjournment and fresh evidence application, finding the evidence irrelevant.

The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the claim was fatally flawed, raised allegations beyond the limitation period, and sought damages for non-existent causes of action.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to compel the City of Ottawa and provincial politicians to disclose information regarding the transit system and the Presto Card.

The motion judge found the court lacked jurisdiction because the appellant had not exhausted his remedies under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the application was premature and quashed the appeal, noting it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal absent leave.

The self-represented appellant failed to appear for his appeal, which had been adjourned multiple times and made peremptory to him.

He requested a further adjournment by email on the morning of the hearing, claiming he thought it was scheduled for the following day.

The Court of Appeal denied the adjournment, finding it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

After reviewing the filed materials, the Court dismissed the appeal on its merits and awarded $1,000 in costs to the respondents.

The appellant appealed an order, attempting to raise potential defences on the merits and challenging the provenance of documents filed below.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusions that the appellant was properly served and had no defence on the merits based on the record.

The appellant sued her former family law solicitor for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty regarding a matrimonial settlement.

At trial, the solicitor admitted negligence concerning the treatment of a cottage as a matrimonial home and advice on spousal support, resulting in a damages award.

On appeal, the appellant argued the negligence permeated the entire settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most of the appeal but found the trial judge erred in setting the commencement date for spousal support damages by double-counting a line of credit debt.

The Court adjusted the commencement date, increasing the spousal support damages by $6,210.

The appellants brought an action seeking millions of dollars against the respondent, following a prior Small Claims Court action where they recovered approximately $6,000.

The motion judge dismissed the second action on the basis of res judicata, finding that both claims arose out of the same business relationship and the claims could have been brought in the first action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, rejecting the appellants' argument that fairness considerations should prevent the application of res judicata.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring that the respondents were entitled to a prescriptive easement for a right-of-way over a driveway on the appellants' property.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in finding the use was 'as of right' rather than by permission.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was open to the trial judge to find on the record that the arrangement between the original owners did not amount to permission, and deference was owed to that factual finding.

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of claim for solicitor's negligence and dismissing the action as an abuse of process.

The appellant alleged his former lawyer was negligent in conducting a prior trial regarding a school fire.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the alleged failures had not occurred, the outcome of the underlying action would have been the same due to other fatal findings, such as the claim being statute-barred and lacking damages.

The court also noted that the alleged omissions were, at most, errors in judgment and did not breach the standard of care.

The plaintiff developed an infection and subsequently necrotizing fasciitis following a Caesarian section.

The trial judge found the defendant doctor and home care nurses negligent in their post-natal treatment and concluded this negligence caused the necrotizing fasciitis, applying a robust and pragmatic approach to causation.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in his application of the robust and pragmatic approach, as there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of causation on a balance of probabilities.

The appeal was allowed and damages were reduced to $1,000 for the pain and suffering flowing from the delayed treatment.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the respondents initiated the proceedings and no issue requiring a trial.

Costs were fixed at $5,000.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering them to repay $47,000 improperly withdrawn from a letter of credit and $7,786.56 for cleaning and grading costs.

The respondents cross-appealed the dismissal of their claim for an alleged overpayment of interest on a vendor take-back mortgage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions regarding the letter of credit draw, issue estoppel, or the mortgage interest payments.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a supplementary endorsement amending a previous endorsement.

The appeal by the appellant Thomson was allowed, the summary judgment against him was set aside, and the motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The court fixed the costs of the appeal at $12,000 on a partial indemnity basis and the costs of the motion below at $40,000.

The applicants brought a motion for directions and requested an extension of time to deliver their factum on the cross-appeals.

Following the initial reasons, the parties reached an agreement.

On consent, the court ordered the cross-appeals to be scheduled for hearing on June 16, 2003, and extended the time for the applicants to deliver their factum.