Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

Appeal from a trial judgment in a fraudulent conveyance action.

The trial judge found the appellants liable for participating in a civil conspiracy to defraud the respondent and to prevent her from realizing on a judgment against one of the defendants.

The trial judge awarded judgment against one defendant in the amount of $175,000 and against two other defendants in the amount of $60,000.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's findings regarding the scope of the proceedings, the facts concerning monies received, and their distribution.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding the conspiracy finding was supported by the record and that the trial judge had broad remedial authority under the applicable legislation.

The moving party sought an extension of time to serve and file a notice of appeal from an order dismissing a motion to set aside a default judgment.

The notice of appeal was served one day late due to inadvertence of counsel.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing prejudice, the moving party's pattern of breaches of court orders, and lack of merit of the proposed appeal.

The court granted the extension, finding that the one-day delay was minimal and explained, that no real prejudice resulted from the delay itself, that the moving party's prior defaults had been addressed through costs orders, and that the proposed appeal was not so devoid of merit as to warrant denial of the right to appeal.

Appeal from a motion judge's decision dismissing the appellant's claim on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The motion judge found that the appellant knew or ought to have known of the claim within the limitation period.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred in his findings regarding when the appellant became aware of the claim.

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

The appellant law firm appealed an order of the motion judge that set aside a report and certificate of assessment.

The motion judge had ruled that the assessment officer erred by refusing to grant an adjournment when the respondent client failed to attend the first day of a scheduled five-day hearing due to a communication error by court staff, thereby depriving the respondent of procedural fairness.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the assessment officer's decision to refuse the adjournment was reasonable and that the motion judge failed to give adequate deference to that decision.

The court considered the respondent's prior conduct, including failure to provide required documentation, cancellation of mediation, and late retention of counsel, in determining that the assessment officer properly balanced the circumstances in the interests of justice.

The appellant appealed the summary dismissal of a medical malpractice action arising from the death of his common law spouse from terminal brain cancer.

The appellant alleged that the defendant physicians breached the standard of care by terminating the drug dexamethasone without tapering and by failing to obtain informed consent.

The motion judge dismissed the action after finding that the appellant's expert evidence was insufficient to establish a genuine issue requiring trial.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the appellant failed to provide qualified expert evidence on standard of care and causation, and that the evidence supported informed consent had been obtained.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding damages for past and future loss of income and earning capacity to the respondent following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by making an award based on ownership income without proper financial statements, a business valuation, or a specific formula.

The appellant also challenged the trial judge's allowance of a per quod claim by the respondent's corporation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's assessment of loss of earning capacity was reasonable and owed deference.

The court also upheld the trial judge's factual finding of an employer-employee relationship supporting the per quod claim.

The appellant appealed a finding that he breached a consent order prohibiting him from maintaining outside storage in his rear yard exceeding 75% lot coverage.

The appellant argued that 'lot coverage' included the area covered by a garage and sheds, meaning he could use 100% of the remaining open area for storage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's interpretation that the order restricted the appellant to using 75% of the open areas of the lot as a whole for outside storage.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant property owner appealed a summary judgment declaring that the respondent cottagers had acquired a prescriptive easement over a laneway owned by the appellant.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by failing to apply the principle of illegality regarding a municipal by-law and by finding sufficient evidence of winter use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no connection between the alleged by-law breach and the easement issue, and no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's treatment of the evidence of continuous year-round use.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that they did not suffer a serious and permanent impairment under s. 35(5) of the Insurance Act following a motor vehicle accident.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, including the finding that any impairment contributing to the breakdown of the appellant's marriage was not proven to be serious and permanent.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to enforce letters rogatory from California that would have required the respondents to be examined under oath in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the appellant failed to establish the necessity of the examinations or that the evidence was not otherwise obtainable.

Motions by both parties to introduce fresh evidence were dismissed, as the evidence was peripheral and not capable of affecting the outcome.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed an order striking her Statement of Claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action against the Crown.

The appellant argued the claim could be read as pleading negligent investigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the words 'negligent investigation' did not appear and no supporting facts were pleaded.

Following a successful appeal by the St. Clair Region Conservation Authority, the court determined the quantum of trial costs.

The parties had previously agreed that the Township's costs of $51,539.81 would be paid by the unsuccessful party.

The Region sought $50,000 for its trial costs.

The court reduced the Region's trial costs to $18,000, noting that the appeal clarified a novel issue under the Occupiers' Liability Act and that the total costs burden on the respondents would otherwise be disproportionate.

The moving party sought to review an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal that dismissed a motion to stay a writ of possession pending appeal.

The moving party's home had been sold for default of mortgage payments.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to review, finding no grounds to set aside the order as the mortgage was undisputedly in default and the documents relied upon did not establish a renewal or compromise.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and suffered a brain impairment.

His initial Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) was 3 out of 15, but improved to 14 out of 15 shortly after arriving at the hospital.

The trial judge ruled that the appellant did not suffer a catastrophic impairment because his GCS scores improved.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the statutory definition of catastrophic impairment under O. Reg. 461/96 only requires a single GCS score of 9 or less within a reasonable time following the accident, provided there is a brain impairment.

The fact that subsequent scores were higher is irrelevant.

The appellant defaulted on two mortgages over her home.

The respondent mortgagee issued a notice of power of sale and entered into an agreement of purchase and sale with a third party.

The appellant's application to enjoin the sale was dismissed.

On appeal, the appellant argued there was no admissible evidence of a valid sale and that the sale was a sham at an undervalue.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding adequate evidence of the sale and no evidence of fraud, bad faith, or a sham transaction.

The appellants sought to enforce an Illinois arbitration award in Ontario against the respondents and to obtain judgment on contractual indemnification obligations.

The application judge enforced the award against the primary debtor but dismissed the application against the other respondents.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the refusal to enforce the arbitral award against the respondents because they lacked proper notice.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the indemnification claim, setting aside the dismissal and staying the application to refer the indemnification dispute to arbitration pursuant to the parties' agreement.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their negligence claims against the respondent employer.

The claims arose from the employment of one of the appellants and alleged failure to provide a safe working environment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the tort claims as framed were barred by the Workers Compensation Act, though noting that any wrongful dismissal claim could proceed.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that there was no genuine issue for trial.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $4,000.

The appellant failed to appear at the hearing despite being advised of the date.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned and awarded costs of $6,000 to the respondents.

The appellants appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice, arguing the trial judge erred in refusing to re-open the trial and in interpreting the contract.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion or interpretation of the contract.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $3,500.