Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her dental negligence action via summary judgment.

She alleged procedural unfairness, insufficient disclosure, and conflicting expert evidence regarding the amount of anesthetic administered and resulting injuries.

The Court of Appeal found no procedural unfairness or reversible errors, affirming the motion judge's use of enhanced fact-finding powers.

The court upheld the preference for the respondent's evidence on anesthetic dosage and lack of causation, and the rejection of the appellant's expert evidence due to admissibility issues.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The Missanabie Cree First Nation appealed a trial decision that determined the "crystallization date" for calculating their Treaty No. 9 reserve land entitlement was 1906, the year they adhered to the Treaty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge correctly interpreted the Treaty's reserve clause and the common intention of the parties, and properly distinguished other treaty cases.

The court also addressed ancillary issues, admitting fresh evidence of a settlement between Canada and MCFN, lifting a sealing order on the settlement, and dismissing Canada's abuse of process motion to dismiss the appeal against it.

The appellants sought to overturn a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent bank, which found no dispute regarding loan and credit card agreements and unpaid funds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the motion judge's factual findings and finding no legal basis to interfere with the decision, including based on fresh evidence.

The appellant/moving party sought to review a previous order granting security for costs and motion costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the review motion, finding no reversible error in the original decision.

The moving party was ordered to post security for costs and pay specified motion costs within 30 days, failing which her further review motion would be automatically dismissed by the Registrar.

Jack Ganz Consulting Ltd. (JGC) appealed a summary judgment dismissing its breach of contract and dependent contractor claims against Recipe Unlimited Corporation (Cara).

JGC alleged Cara breached a 2006 consulting agreement, including a stock option provision, and failed to provide reasonable notice upon termination.

The motion judge found JGC waived an auto-renewal clause, terminating the agreement in 2010, and that no other written agreement replaced it.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred in finding a unilateral waiver for no consideration and that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the terms governing the parties' relationship after 2008, given the uncertainty in the record and the parties' conduct.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment set aside, and the matter remitted for trial.

The appellant, Qiangli Cao, appealed a summary judgment that dismissed his action for defamation, racial discrimination, and dereliction of duty against the City of Markham and Markham Public Library.

The motion judge had found the action barred by issue estoppel, as the claims largely impugned evidence previously determined in a prior action by the appellant's company (CPCL) against the same respondents.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's reasoning, confirming that the validity of the evidence had been finally determined and that the appellant was a privy to the prior proceeding.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant sought an extension of time to bring a motion to a three-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal to appeal a motion judge's decision.

The motion judge had dismissed the appellant's request to set aside a registrar's order dismissing her appeal for delay and awarded costs.

The original appeal concerned a dispute over legal fees.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's request for an extension of time, finding no valid reason for the delays in perfecting the original appeal or in appealing the motion judge's decision.

The court emphasized that the justice of the cause favoured the respondent.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerning an appeal brought by K. Matthew Hoang against Mann Engineering Ltd. et al.

The Court of Appeal awarded costs of the appeal to the respondents in the amount of $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes.

The appellants sought to re-open their appeal of a decision dismissing their action against the respondent for terminating a commercial contract.

The appellants sought to advance a new legal argument based on repudiation, which had not been raised at trial or on the initial appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, holding that it would be unfair to permit a new legal issue after more than 10 years of litigation and that re-opening the appeal was not in the interests of justice.

The appellant, Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation, appealed a decision regarding the calculation of amounts payable to the respondent non-utility generators under long-term power purchase agreements.

The dispute centered on whether a new government regulation reallocating the Global Adjustment Mechanism (GA) altered the calculation of Total Market Costs (TMC) under the agreements.

The application judge found that the new GA calculation was inconsistent with the definition of TMC, which required costs to be allocated pro rata to consumption.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge did not decide the case on an unargued issue, made no palpable and overriding factual errors, and properly interpreted the agreements without improperly implying a term.

The appellant, a non-party to the proposed action, appealed an order directing it to produce certain documents to the respondent.

However, the documents were produced before the appeal was launched, rendering the appeal moot.

The Court of Appeal declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, noting that the issue was not one that would evade appellate review in the normal course and that the order under appeal was discretionary based on specific facts.

The appeal was dismissed as moot.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application for a declaration that the respondent lawyer breached the deemed undertaking rule by sharing information about a writ against the appellant with another respondent.

The application judge found no breach because the assignment of the writ occurred before the correspondence disclosing the writ and settlement negotiations.

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

The court declined to award costs, noting that the respondent lawyer should not have appeared as counsel since he was a named respondent and his conduct was central to the case.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision regarding a limitation period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by failing to address the specific requirements of section 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002, particularly section 5(1)(a)(iv).

The judgment below was set aside and costs were awarded to the appellant.

The self-represented appellant purported to appeal a costs-only order following the dismissal of his underlying action.

The Court of Appeal held that there is no right of appeal from a costs order and that leave is required.

Treating the materials as an application for leave to appeal costs, the Court refused leave and awarded costs of $1,000 to each of the four responding groups.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action for negligent misrepresentation.

They alleged the respondents negligently misrepresented that a property severance had been obtained in 1996.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the representation was made, the appellant knew nothing had been registered.

Under the Planning Act, registration is required for a valid severance.

The court held that the appellants' loss was caused by their own error of law, for which the respondents could not be held accountable.

The moving parties brought a motion to review an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal, which refused an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal.

The moving parties had claimed at trial that they intended only to provide a character reference for the main borrowers, but the trial judge rejected their evidence.

Their appeal to the Divisional Court was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the single judge that there was no basis for granting an extension of time, as the proposed leave motion raised only issues of credibility and had no chance of success.

The motion was dismissed with costs fixed at $3,000.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's refusal to set aside orders authorizing collection procedures and the issuance of a further notice of garnishment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the orders as the respondent held a valid Ontario judgment against the appellant.

The court held that the appellant was improperly attempting to re-litigate previously made orders.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of whether she could recover no-fault medical and rehabilitation benefits beyond the 10-year benefit period under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, provided the need for such expenses was established with certainty within the 10-year period.

The Court of Appeal held that the plain meaning of section 6(1) of the SABS requires that the expenses result within the benefit period.

Therefore, expenses for treatments and services provided beyond the 10-year anniversary of the accident are not recoverable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) brought a motion for a stay of an order restraining its members from picketing at courthouses during a lawful strike, pending an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

OPSEU argued that peaceful informational picketing is a protected form of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter and that a total ban was unnecessary.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for granting a stay.

While tentatively accepting jurisdiction as a single judge to hear the motion, the court dismissed the motion on the balance of convenience branch.

The court held that the public interest in ensuring unimpeded access to the courts, as established in BCGEU, outweighed the harm flowing from the infringement of the picketers' constitutional rights.

The self-represented appellant appealed four Certificates of Assessment of Costs issued by an assessment officer following the dismissal of his earlier appeal.

The appellant raised numerous objections, including allegations that the respondents' claims for costs were fraudulent, that one corporate respondent did not exist, and that the assessment officer demonstrated bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the assessment officer's duty was to assess costs in accordance with the court's order, not to look behind it or review the underlying basis of the claims.

The court found no foundation for the appellant's allegations of fraud or bias.