Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

The Empowerment Council sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal from the refusal to certify a proposed class action concerning psychiatric inpatients at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervener’s submissions were largely duplicative of the appellants’ and would not usefully contribute to the resolution of the appeal without prejudicing the parties.

The appellants, Alex and Maryam Furney, appealed a motion judge's decision granting summary judgment to the respondent, Mohammad Ali Rabbani, for debts owed on promissory notes and a mortgage.

The appellants raised over thirty grounds of appeal, primarily alleging unfairness, errors of law and fact, and an improper costs award.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error, affirming the motion judge's discretion in refusing an adjournment and her finding that there was no genuine issue for trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

A non-party lawyer appealed an order requiring him to attend for examination as a witness in a motion pending before the Superior Court of Justice.

The lawyer was counsel of record for the City of Windsor.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the case management judge had properly applied the stringent test for ordering opposing counsel to be examined and had made no error warranting appellate intervention.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claim against herself for statutory vicarious liability as the owner of a vehicle involved in an accident.

The appellant was a passenger in her own vehicle driven by her daughter when the accident occurred in a private parking lot.

The motion judge dismissed the claim on the ground that the accident did not occur on a "highway" as defined in the Highway Traffic Act and therefore section 192(2) of the Act did not apply.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal suggesting the accident occurred at a GO Station parking lot used by the general public.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence and upheld the summary judgment dismissal.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice referring his solicitor's account dated February 28, 2016 for assessment under the Solicitors Act.

The Court of Appeal determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the order was interlocutory rather than final in nature.

The order concerned a preliminary procedural matter directing referral for assessment, not the substantive determination of the account's quantum.

The appellant retained the right to defend the quantum of his account during the assessment process.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed.

The appellant, operator of a retirement home, appealed the dismissal of its action for misfeasance in public office against the City of Hamilton and the Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, arising from an order to comply issued in 1994.

The appellant also appealed the trial judge's costs award of over $4 million.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the misfeasance claim, finding the public officials acted lawfully and in good faith to protect vulnerable residents.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on costs, reducing the award to a partial indemnity scale and adjusting for duplication of counsel after the City and Region amalgamated.

The appellant insurer appealed a declaration that it was the first insurer to respond to tort claims arising from a single-vehicle accident involving a rented vehicle.

The renter, who was a passenger at the time, sued the rental company and the uninsured driver.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the renter's standard automobile policy was not 'available' to respond to claims against the owner and driver of the rented vehicle, as the policy only provided coverage for liability asserted against the renter.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that failed to find the individual respondent personally liable for a debt.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by treating the case as one of piercing the corporate veil rather than personal contract.

Based on the uncontradicted evidence, including a quotation addressed to the individual and a purchase order signed by him without indicating a corporate capacity, the court concluded the appellant contracted with both the corporate and individual respondents.

The individual respondent was ordered to pay $89,849.94 plus pre-judgment interest.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment expunging a mortgage and finding the appellant wife complicit in a fraudulent mortgage transaction structured by her husband, a former solicitor.

The appellants argued there was no evidence to support the finding of complicity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the record contained evidence that the appellant wife prepared the mortgage, signed the direction to register it, and gave instructions for its enforcement despite knowing no debt was owed.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding that no legal fees were owed to the husband.

The plaintiff brought a Small Claims Court action against a court-appointed family law assessor, alleging breach of contract and negligence.

The defendant successfully moved to strike the claim on the basis of expert witness immunity and the expiry of the limitation period.

The Divisional Court overturned the decision, finding that the motion judge erred by making findings of fact on a summary judgment motion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that while summary judgment motions are not available under the Small Claims Court Rules, the motion judge's decision was sustainable under rule 12.02 as a motion to strike a claim that is a waste of time.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following the hearing of two appeals.

The Van Breda respondents and the Charron respondents were each awarded costs fixed at $45,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The respondents Hola Sun Holidays Limited and Bel Air Travel Group Ltd. were each awarded costs fixed at $10,000.

No costs were ordered for or against the interveners.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against the respondent bank for breach of a settlement agreement.

The appellant argued the bank improperly reported his written-off debt as an R9 'bad debt' credit rating.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the summary judgment test and that the settlement agreement explicitly stated the bank was not required to report to credit agencies in any particular way.

The appellant surgeon appealed a trial judgment finding him negligent in his care and treatment of the respondent patient.

The patient suffered severe complications, including nerve and artery damage, during surgery for Thoracic Outlet Syndrome.

The trial judge found that the surgeon failed to adequately disclose the risks of the surgery and that a reasonable person in the patient's position would not have consented had proper disclosure been made.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding informed consent.

The appellants, Italian manufacturers of custom equipment, appealed a decision dismissing their motion to set aside service and stay the respondents' Ontario action.

The appellants argued that the contract was formed in September 2004 and included an exclusive jurisdiction clause for Italy, and that parallel proceedings were already underway in Italy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the contract was formed in March 2004 without a jurisdiction clause, that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter based on a real and substantial connection, and that Italy was not clearly a more appropriate forum.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment on a promissory note.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that while the default was explained and there was no delay, the appellants failed to present a valid defence on the merits.

The balance of prejudice favoured the respondent, as no payments had been made.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed an order striking paragraphs in its statement of claim that alleged three statements (website, faxed, and oral) were defamatory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the impugned remarks, taken in context, were not capable of bearing the defamatory meanings alleged by reasonable persons of ordinary intelligence.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion under the Solicitors Act to refer six prior, fully paid accounts rendered by the respondent solicitors for assessment.

The Court of Appeal first determined it had jurisdiction, finding the motion judge's order was a final disposition.

On the merits, the Court found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's discretionary finding that there were no 'special circumstances' under s. 11 of the Solicitors Act to justify assessing accounts paid years earlier by other parties.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claim for specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale of land.

The appellants had failed to pay the deposit within the stipulated five days, and the vendors treated the agreement as at an end.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge was entitled to conclude that the appellants knew an oral comment by the vendors' representative was not legally binding to amend the agreement or waive rights.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict finding her 90 per cent liable for a motor vehicle accident.

The jury concluded that the appellant was not paying attention and collided with the rear of the respondent's vehicle.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was an evidentiary basis for the jury's findings and the verdict was not so plainly unreasonable and unjust that no reasonable jury could have reached it.

Following the release of the main appeal decision, the court was asked to fix the costs of the six-day trial.

As the applicant's ultimate recovery was more favourable than the respondent's offer to settle, she was awarded party and party costs throughout.

The court fixed the trial costs at $30,000 all inclusive.