Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Manpreet Dhaliwal’s appeal from the trial decision and costs order in her family and civil actions against Hardeep Singh Nijher and his family.

The court found no legal or factual errors in the trial judge’s findings regarding property equalization, spousal support, and damages for intentional infliction of mental distress.

The trial judge’s credibility findings against the appellant were upheld, and the court found no evidence of bias or procedural unfairness.

Leave to appeal the costs order was also denied.

The respondents (moving parties on the motion) sought reconsideration of a Court of Appeal decision rendered 15 months prior.

The motion was dismissed as lacking merit, with the court emphasizing the principle of finality.

Reconsideration is rarely granted, especially when the moving party has already unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the same arguments, which was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to extend the time for her to appeal an order of Speyer J. dated June 8, 2018.

The motion judge found that the order of Speyer J. was not an appeal from a prior order but rather a motion heard by a single judge of the Divisional Court.

Consequently, any appeal of Speyer J.'s order would lie to a panel of the Divisional Court, not to the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The motion judge therefore lacked jurisdiction to grant an extension of time for appeal and dismissed the motion without costs.

The appellant sought an appeal of an order dismissing its application on the grounds of mootness.

The original application sought mandatory orders and an injunction to access certain data controlled by the respondent.

The parties reached a consent order permitting access to the data on the condition that the appellant pay outstanding fees to the respondent's lawyers on a without admission of liability basis.

When the appellant failed to make the payment by the stipulated date, the respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application, which the application judge granted on mootness grounds.

The appellant argued that the payment requirement was optional and that it should have been given a further opportunity to pay before dismissal.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them unjustly enriched by the transfer of two valuable licenses without payment.

The appellants argued that where contract negotiations have failed, courts cannot use unjust enrichment to impose a contract on the parties.

The Court of Appeal rejected this submission, distinguishing the case from Skibinski v. Community Living British Columbia.

The trial judge had found as a fact that the appellants had no reasonable expectation of receiving the licenses for nothing.

The appellants also challenged the damages award, but the Court of Appeal found the trial judge's assessment entitled to deference.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellants appealed the trial judge's decision dismissing their motor vehicle accident action from 2003.

The appellants, who were self-represented and elderly, sought a further adjournment of their jury trial, citing age and health issues.

The trial judge declined the adjournment and dismissed the action after a lengthy history of delay, multiple changes of counsel, and failure to comply with court orders.

The appellants failed to provide medical evidence supporting their request for adjournment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the discretion to grant or deny an adjournment was exercised judicially on proper principles, balancing the interests of all parties and the administration of justice.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing their action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the action on the condition that the appellant pay the respondent's agreed costs thrown away of $13,600 within 60 days.

Following a successful appeal by the appellant, the respondent brought a motion to re-open the appeal based on fresh evidence.

The court declined to re-open the appeal.

The appellant sought costs of $7,500 for preparing responding materials and costs submissions.

The court awarded the appellant costs fixed at $2,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellants appealed the judgment of Justice Tausendfreund of the Superior Court of Justice dated November 4, 2009.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal without costs in a brief endorsement.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding her action was statute-barred.

She sought to admit a 2003 cheque as fresh evidence to show a payment on the mortgages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to adduce fresh evidence because the appellant provided no explanation for failing to adduce it before the motion judge, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside a consent order that had amended a default judgment against him to include declarations of fraud.

The bank had originally obtained default judgment for a debt based on a personal guarantee, without pleading fraud.

Later, the bank moved under Rule 59.06 to add declarations of fraud, to which the appellant consented based on his solicitor's misunderstanding.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the solicitor's mistake and the bank's reliance on the appellant's representations.

The Court also held that Rule 59.06 cannot be used to amend a judgment to grant relief that was never sought in the original pleadings.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment enforcing an Indemnity Agreement and collateral demand mortgages.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the Indemnity Agreement was a specialty subject to a 20-year limitation period and that the action on the collateral mortgages was brought within the 10-year limitation period, which commenced when moneys were advanced under the primary indemnity obligation.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge erred by granting judgment on the mortgage covenants for an amount in excess of the primary indemnity debt, as the mortgages were collateral security.

Following an appeal where success was divided, the parties could not agree on the costs of the original application.

The respondent had been totally successful at first instance and was awarded $40,000.

The Court of Appeal reduced the costs award for the application to $20,000, noting that the relief ultimately obtained by the respondent was significantly less than what was originally sought, which added to the time and cost of the proceeding.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment holding them jointly and severally liable for breach of construction contracts and imposing a constructive trust on a portion of the funds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's calculation of damages and the finding of personal liability against the individual appellant, as he failed to disclose he was acting for a corporate entity.

However, the Court set aside the constructive trust, finding that the risk of the appellants' bankruptcy was purely speculative and damages were an adequate remedy.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his counterclaim for defamation and his cross-motion to amend his statement of defence to include equitable set-off.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant was required to provide notice under s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act before delivering his counterclaim, as the damages claimed related to republication in newspapers.

The court also agreed that the proposed amendment for equitable set-off would have no practical consequence and the requirements for it were not met.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The parties were involved in an optometry practice that dissolved following the death of one of the partners.

After a 29-day trial, the trial judge found that an 'income partnership' existed, awarded damages for defamation, and made a no costs order.

Both parties appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusions regarding the nature of the partnership, the defamation findings, or the costs order.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee 10 months' salary in lieu of notice for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge had explicitly increased the notice period to include 'Wallace damages' for bad faith, despite such damages not being pleaded or claimed.

The Court of Appeal found this was an error in principle.

Applying the standard of review for wrongful dismissal awards, the Court deferred to the trial judge's assessment of the Bardol factors but removed the estimated one-month portion attributable to the Wallace damages, reducing the total notice period to 9 months.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's decision regarding liability under a lease and the dismissal of its counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the appellant had no liability for matters predating the 1999 lease and that there was no evidence of the cost to remove partitions erected during the lease term.

The court also found that the trial judge erred by dismissing the counterclaim without analysis, and ordered a new trial on the counterclaim.

The main action was dismissed.

The appellant, Apotex Inc., appealed a motion judge's decision allowing the respondents to amend their claim to substitute two Québec representative plaintiffs in an Ontario class action.

Apotex argued that the action lacked a real and substantial connection to Ontario, that Ontario was not the convenient forum, and that the action was an abuse of process due to parallel Québec proceedings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter because Apotex resides and carries on business in Ontario.

The court also held that it was premature to determine forum non conveniens on a motion to amend, and accepted counsel's undertaking that the Québec proceedings would not advance pending the Ontario certification decision, thereby negating the abuse of process claim.

The appellant brought a proposed class action against the manufacturers of the prescription drug Prepulsid.

The respondents successfully moved to strike paragraphs of the statement of claim alleging fraudulent or negligent filings with Health Canada and claiming reimbursement of the purchase price.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reinstating the paragraphs regarding regulatory filings as they were sustainable under a negligence or negligent misstatement claim.

However, the court upheld the striking of the reimbursement claims, finding they could not be sustained under negligence, breach of contract, or unjust enrichment.