Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

The plaintiff, Cary Beazley, brought a motion to review a single motion judge's order of the Court of Appeal, which had dismissed his motion for an extension of time to appeal the dismissal of his medical malpractice action.

Beazley alleged negligence by physicians for failing to timely diagnose and treat Lyme disease.

The Court of Appeal panel reviewed the motion judge's decision, applying a deferential standard of review, and found no legal error or misapprehension of material evidence.

The panel upheld the motion judge's finding that the proposed appeal lacked arguable grounds, as the expert evidence did not support Beazley's claims regarding Lyme disease testing accuracy or the standard of care.

The review motion was dismissed without costs.

This appeal concerned a defamation action where the motion judge struck out claims.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge erred by taking an overly technical approach to pleadings, specifically regarding the pleading of special damages for one appellant and failing to grant leave to amend for the other appellants.

The appeal was allowed, the motion judge's order striking out claims was set aside, and the appellants were granted leave to file a further amended statement of claim.

The appellant, Tanvir Farid, sought to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing his appeal for failure to perfect it within a judicially set deadline.

The original appeal challenged a summary judgment finding him liable for defamation.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Registrar's interpretation of the deadline and dismissed Mr. Farid's motion to set aside the dismissal, concluding that he failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and that the appeal lacked arguable merit, causing prejudice to the respondents.

The appellants, former litigation counsel, appealed the dismissal of their summary judgment motion based on a limitations defence in a solicitor negligence claim.

The motion judge found the claim was not discoverable until the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal, or alternatively, that commencing an action earlier was not an appropriate means to remedy it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the claim was not time-barred, emphasizing that the respondents reasonably relied on their counsel's advice regarding the underlying litigation's legal errors, thus delaying discoverability of the negligence claim.

This is an appeal from an order directing the payment of funds held in court (net proceeds from a home sale) to the respondent in partial satisfaction of a summary judgment against Paige Imola.

The appellant, Luigi Imola, had transferred his interest in the home to his wife, Paige Imola, years prior to avoid creditors.

He argued for a resulting trust over half the funds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's factual findings, including the appellant's intention to gift the property and his subsequent actions, rebutted any presumption of a resulting trust.

An appeal by Royal Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada (RSA) from a trial judge's decision that RSA was responsible to provide insurance coverage to the estate of Steven Devecseri, who was killed in a motorcycle accident in 2006.

Devecseri had alcohol in his system at the time of the accident, which breached both his M2 driver's licence restrictions and his insurance policy terms.

RSA did not learn of the alcohol consumption until 2009 during discovery proceedings, at which point it took an off-coverage position.

The trial judge found that RSA waived its right to deny coverage by failing to obtain the coroner's report in 2006 and by defending the claim without taking a reservation of rights.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that RSA did not waive coverage and was not estopped from denying coverage because it lacked actual knowledge of the policy breach until 2009.

The appellants brought a second motion for reconsideration of a prior Court of Appeal decision that had dismissed their appeal and affirmed a judgment against them.

The appellants sought to set aside or vary the prior decision on grounds of fraud, mistake, and significant new material facts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the appellants were recycling arguments already considered and rejected, mischaracterizing the basis of their first motion to reconsider, and presenting arguments without merit regarding the respondent's standing and the credibility of witnesses.

The court further ordered that the appellants could not initiate further proceedings without paying outstanding costs and obtaining leave of the panel.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's finding that he had entered into a binding settlement agreement with the respondents.

The appellant argued that his disability rendered him incapable of entering into the agreement and that he had subsequently repudiated it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the appellant had a full and complete understanding of the agreement and that the respondents did not accept his repudiation.

The appellant's vehicle was seized by police as proceeds of crime and held under a detention order.

The appellant, claiming to be an innocent third party, commenced a civil action to recover the vehicle and seek damages for its detention.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision to dismiss the action, agreeing that the Criminal Code provisions for innocent third party remedies constitute a complete code, precluding parallel civil proceedings absent allegations of actionable police misconduct.

The appellant appealed a judgment, arguing the motion judge erred by assessing the respondent's mitigation efforts without cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reasons and concluding that mitigation efforts could be fairly assessed on the record.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $6,000.

The appellant brought a motion to stay the execution of two writs of seizure and sale, pending an appeal of an order that refused to schedule her motion for a stay.

The underlying order was based on the appellant's failure to file material challenging her criminal conviction, which formed the basis of the respondent's summary judgment against her.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the appealed order was interlocutory, not final.

The court also noted the appellant's history of alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and her failure to file the necessary materials to support her claims.

The appellant golf club appealed a trial judgment, relying on an exclusion of liability printed on a greens fee ticket.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to take reasonable steps to bring the exclusion to the respondent's attention as required by section 5(3) of the Occupiers Liability Act.

The court also found no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's treatment of expert evidence, as the expert had not considered certain facts accepted by the trial judge.

The appellant appealed an order of a Superior Court judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly considered and weighed the relevant factors in accordance with the governing jurisprudence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment and the refusal of a stay of proceedings by the motions judge.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motions judge's analysis or exercise of discretion under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal the costs order was also denied.

The appellants, correctional officers, brought an action against their employer and senior management alleging that a covert operation to stop contraband poisoned their work environment and caused physical and emotional harm.

The defendants successfully moved to strike the claims (except defamation) on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the essential character of the dispute engaged the employer's obligation under the collective agreement to provide a safe workplace, and therefore the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitrator.

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

The Court of Appeal for Ontario noted that the appeal was settled on the terms of a filed consent order.

The appellant, an engineering student, sued the respondent university for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation regarding the transferability of its two-year program to other Ontario universities.

The motions judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action and denied class certification, finding that the appellant's failure to complete one elective course meant he had not met a 'condition precedent' to rely on the representations.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the claim was framed in tort, not contract, and therefore no condition precedent applied.

The summary judgment was set aside, and the certification motion was remitted to the Superior Court.

The appellant appealed a judgment ordering him and related companies to pay $229,080 to the respondents, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's reduction of the award by $174,944 and the refusal to award pre-judgment interest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, finding the action was commenced within the limitation period.

The Court allowed the respondents' cross-appeal regarding the $174,944 reduction, increasing the damages award to $404,024, but upheld the trial judge's refusal to award pre-judgment interest based on the parties' agreement.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondents damages for unjust enrichment arising from an oral agreement for farm labour in exchange for rent-free accommodation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of unjust enrichment and the method of calculating damages, but reduced the quantum slightly to align with the statement of claim.

The Court also allowed the appeal on costs, varying the trial judge's award from a solicitor-and-client basis to a party-and-party basis, finding no reprehensible conduct to justify the higher scale.

The appellants sought to enforce a Florida default judgment for damages arising from a real estate transaction against the respondents in Ontario.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the Florida judgment was obtained by fraud and its enforcement would contravene public policy.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against most respondents, holding that the fraud defence requires newly discovered facts that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence, which the respondents failed to demonstrate.

The public policy defence was also rejected.

However, the appeal was dismissed against one respondent whose absolute discharge from bankruptcy released her from the judgment debt.