Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

The appellant, Muhammad Jawaid, appealed a trial judgment in a mortgage action.

The appellant argued that he was not adequately informed about the scope of the trial, was denied procedural fairness, and that the trial judge's decision constituted a collateral attack on an earlier interlocutory order setting aside a default judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant was aware of the trial's scope, was not denied procedural fairness, and that an interlocutory order setting aside default judgment is not binding on a subsequent trial judge as it only determines procedure, not the rights of the parties.

The court found no error of fact or law in the trial judge's decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Unit Precast (Breslau) Ltd. and a cross-appeal by Click+Clean GmbH.

Unit Precast appealed the striking out of its claims for conspiracy and intentional interference with contractual relations, and claims asserted personally against Lars Bergmann, arguing the motion judge erred in failing to recognize its business as part of RH20 North America Inc.'s.

Click+Clean GmbH cross-appealed the dismissal of its motion to stay the action in favour of arbitration, contending the motion judge erred in finding the arbitration agreement inoperative.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding Unit Precast's claims were not adequately pleaded and that Click+Clean GmbH waived its right to arbitrate by seeking substantive relief (motion to strike) from the court.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the Court of Appeal allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside a trial judge's order requiring the appellant to "top up" assigned benefits due to tax deductions.

The appellant was awarded partial indemnity costs for the appeal.

This endorsement specifically addresses the costs of a prior motion before the trial judge (the "top up motion"), for which the trial judge had made no costs order.

The Court of Appeal found the appellant entitled to costs for this motion, ordering the respondent to pay $10,000, reasoning that the unanticipated nature of the trial judge's order and the parties' failure to seek an advance tax ruling contributed to the litigation.

The appellants sought relief to stop the respondent from harassing and defaming the mayor, town council members, and staff through abusive emails and statements.

The application judge refused to grant any relief sought, including a declaration that the respondent's conduct breached the Town's harassment policies and a permanent injunction against defamatory statements.

On appeal, the court upheld the refusal to issue a broad injunction against defamatory speech absent a prior finding of defamation, but allowed the appeal in part by granting an injunction restraining the respondent from maintaining or purporting to maintain any town property without permission.

The court awarded costs to the appellants.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondents $100,000 in general damages and $75,000 in punitive damages arising from the sale of a farm property.

The Court of Appeal set aside both awards, finding that punitive damages were neither pleaded nor sought, and the general damages for harassment and mental distress were unpleaded and unsupported by expert medical evidence or adequate reasons.

The trial costs award was upheld, and the appellant was awarded costs of the appeal.

The appellant landlord wrongfully terminated a commercial lease.

The application judge awarded the respondent tenant damages based on the rent the tenant would have received from its subtenants, but failed to deduct the rent the tenant would have owed the landlord for the remainder of the lease term.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, correcting the calculation error to properly reflect expectation damages, reducing the damage award from $130,600 to $35,600.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their oppression claim against the respondents.

The claim was based on the respondent's refusal to appoint the individual appellant as a co-director of a corporation when he sought to exercise an option to re-acquire shares.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant had no statutory, contractual, or tort-based entitlement to a directorship.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order dismissing their motion to add four defendants to an action claiming damages from improper foreclosure orders.

The motion judge found the claims against the proposed defendants were statute-barred under the two-year limitation period, as the appellants knew or ought to have known of their involvement well before the limitation period expired.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, rejecting arguments that a ten-year limitation period applied or that the doctrine of special circumstances permitted adding the parties.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the partial dismissal of an appeal and the remittal of a breach of contract issue for trial, the parties made written submissions on whether security should remain in place pending the trial.

The Court of Appeal held that the issue of security should be decided by the trial court.

The court ordered the security to remain in place for 60 days to allow the appellant to move for security in the trial court.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement following an appeal where the appellant lost on the primary issue of oppression but succeeded in obtaining a new trial on an unresolved breach of contract issue.

The court found that responsibility for the failure to litigate the contract issue was divided between the parties.

Given the unusual circumstances and divided success, the court concluded that a fair costs award was for each side to bear its own costs throughout the proceedings.

The appellant appealed the order of the motion judge, who dismissed her motion to set aside the dismissal of her action.

The motion judge applied the Reid factors, finding no adequate explanation for the 10.5-year delay, lack of diligence, and that 7.5 years since the dismissal was too long to revive the action.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the analysis and dismissed the appeal.

The appellants (Developers) appealed a trial judgment finding them indebted to the respondent (Contractor), allowing the Contractor to allocate advance payments to older invoices, and finding the Developers in breach of their trust obligations under s. 7 of the Construction Lien Act.

The Contractor cross-appealed the disallowance of certain invoices and the failure to grant equitable relief.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the Developers owed some debt, that the Contractor properly allocated the advances after making reasonable inquiries, and that the Developers breached their trust obligations by commingling funds.

The cross-appeal was allowed in part to permit recovery on specific basement subexcavation invoices supported by approved purchase orders.

The appellant appealed a decision of the motion judge granting summary judgment in favour of the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for the reasons given by the motion judge, finding no error in the granting of summary judgment.

Costs of the appeal were fixed at $5,000.

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

On consent of the parties, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal without costs.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement following an appeal where the main corporate appellant was substantially unsuccessful, but a related corporate appellant was found not liable.

The parties failed to settle the successful corporate appellant's trial costs.

The court fixed the successful corporate appellant's trial costs at $5,000, noting its minor role at trial and the time wasted by the unsuccessful appellant.

The court declined the respondent's request to set off these costs against the trial costs awarded to him from the unsuccessful appellant.

A fraudster induced the respondent financing company to advance funds, which were used to purchase shares in an investment account.

The fraudster then pledged these shares to the appellant bank to secure a line of credit.

The respondent obtained a tracing order and claimed the funds based on unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant bank was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and had a valid security interest in the shares.

The appeal was allowed, and the funds were awarded to the appellant bank.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding jurisdiction over its fraud claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the fraud claim was linked to Ontario because the alleged harm was suffered there through the receipt of invoices, and the business dealings were governed by a contract containing an Ontario forum selection and governing law clause.

The defendants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for negligence and occupiers' liability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that although the trial judge misstated some evidence, the findings on negligence, contributory negligence, and the status of the individual defendants as occupiers under the Occupiers' Liability Act were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The damages award was also upheld.

The appellant (defendant at trial) appealed the trial judge's finding of liability and assessment of damages.

The trial judge found that the appellant breached his obligation to the respondent by secretly informing clients that their partnership was ending, soliciting them, and misappropriating files.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal by British Aviation Insurance Group (Canada) Ltd., finding that the trial judge's findings were reasonably supported by the evidence.

Consequently, the respondent did not pursue its cross-appeal, which was also dismissed.

A concurrent appeal by McDonnell against the dismissal of an action against AOG was dismissed because it raised new issues not argued at trial and contradicted the evidence of its own representative.

All appeals were dismissed with costs.