Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

The appellant, Shelly Legault, appealed a trial decision that dismissed her action against TD General Insurance Company for denial of a homeowner's insurance claim following a fire.

The trial judge found that Legault had made a fraudulent declaration regarding additional living expenses (ALE), leading to forfeiture of coverage, and granted TD damages on a counterclaim, plus costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the appellant's fraud vitiated the policy, that the payment of professional witnesses was permissible, and that the costs award was within the trial judge's discretion.

The appellant appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a Deputy Judge's order for pre-trial inspection of an iPhone in a products liability case.

The appellant alleged the iPhone overheated and caused severe burns to his arm.

The central issue was whether Deputy Judges of the Small Claims Court have jurisdiction to order pre-trial inspection of property.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that such jurisdiction exists under the Rules of the Small Claims Court where trial fairness and the interests of justice require it, and that the jurisdiction was properly exercised in this case.

The appellant appealed an order from the Superior Court of Justice that set aside a notice of default and dismissed her action against the Crown on the grounds of abuse of process and failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The appellant's action alleged that Ministry of the Attorney General employees misconducted themselves in relation to proceedings before the Landlord Tenant Board, Divisional Court, and Superior Court of Justice that had been decided adversely against her.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the action constituted an abuse of process as it represented an attempt to question the legitimacy of unfavourable proceedings, and that the appellant failed to plead the necessary elements of malice or intent to injure for the tort of misfeasance in public office.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to set aside a default judgment.

They sought to introduce fresh evidence consisting of expert reports suggesting a key document in the litigation was forged.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, noting that while the appellants failed to exercise due diligence by not raising the issue before the motion judge, the interests of justice required a trial to resolve the real concerns about the bona fides of the respondent's claim.

The appeal was allowed and the default judgment set aside.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following a motion to review an order dismissing a motion as abandoned.

Costs were fixed at $3,000 all inclusive in favour of the respondents.

The moving party condominium corporation brought a motion to quash an appeal of an application judge's order appointing an arbitrator.

The responding parties sought to appeal the appointment, arguing the application judge erred in referring all issues to the arbitrator without assessing their arbitrability.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that section 10(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 explicitly precludes any appeal from a court's appointment of an arbitral tribunal.

The appellants sought to certify a class action claiming unpaid overtime on behalf of Investment Advisors and Associate Investment Advisors employed by the respondents.

The motion judge and Divisional Court dismissed the certification motion, finding that eligibility for overtime pay could not be determined as a common issue because it required an individual assessment of each employee's duties, autonomy, and managerial responsibilities.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no material misapprehension of evidence and that the lower courts correctly applied the legal principles governing the common issue requirement under s. 5(1)(c) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The appellants appealed the decision of the motion judge dismissing their action.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's res judicata analysis and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $6,000 to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $231,963 for loans advanced.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by relying on evidence of settlement discussions held before a mediator in India, claiming settlement privilege.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants had waived any potential settlement privilege by failing to pursue their objection, leading their own evidence about the discussions, and relying on that evidence in closing submissions.

The trial judge's finding of personal liability was upheld.

The plaintiff appealed an order dismissing its action for delay at a status hearing.

The action had not progressed beyond the pleadings stage five years after it was commenced.

The plaintiff failed to comply with a timetable agreed upon at a previous status hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the status hearing judge did not err in considering the entire history of the delay, inferring the defendants' belief that the action was abandoned, and dismissing the action without evidence of actual prejudice to the defendants.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action.

The appellant argued that the parties had agreed to renew an existing commercial lease, subject only to agreeing on rent and the term.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that an agreement missing essential terms such as rent and duration is merely an unenforceable agreement to agree.

The court also noted the appellant failed to comply with the in-writing requirements of the Statute of Frauds.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice regarding the interpretation of an agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge's analysis that Sections 8 and 2 of the agreement must be read together.

The court found the application judge's reasoning sufficient to dispose of the interpretative issue in favour of the respondents.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding personal liability and interpreting a second contract as open-ended as to time.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the trial judge's interpretation based on the plain wording of the contract and the parties' subsequent conduct.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice that interfered with an assessment officer's decision regarding a solicitor's account.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the appeal judge failed to apply the appropriate standard of review.

The court noted that an appeal from an assessment officer is only concerned with questions of principle, not amounts or discretion, unless the decision is unreasonable.

The assessment officer's order was restored.

The appellant brought a proposed class action against Health Canada, alleging negligent regulation of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) implants.

The motion judge struck the claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that it was plain and obvious that Health Canada did not owe a private law duty of care to individual consumers of medical devices.

The statutory scheme did not create a proximate relationship, and the pleadings failed to allege specific representations or reliance that would establish proximity under the Anns/Cooper test.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his application to replace the Court Administrator of a condominium corporation.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's analysis or conclusions and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $3,000 to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an order regarding compensation in a class action.

The appeal was resolved on consent, with the appellant abandoning his claim for compensation in excess of $95,000.

Class counsel consented to a payment of $95,000 to the appellant on a quantum meruit basis, to be paid from funds set aside for class counsel and appellant compensation.

The parties reached a settlement on the appeal from the judgments of Justice Susan E. Greer.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the $1.5 million held in trust pursuant to a prior order be transferred forthwith to Goldman Sloan in trust pending further order, and that necessary consents be filed to give effect to the Minutes of Settlement.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's decision, arguing that the trial judge erred in findings of fact and that the respondent's delay in initiating proceedings should disentitle them from advancing their claims.

The Court of Appeal found no global error in the findings of fact and agreed with the trial judge regarding the delay.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.