Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

The applicant, K. Matthew Hoang, brought a motion to the Court of Appeal for Ontario seeking to set aside a prior decision of the same court and allow him to amend his pleadings, following the dismissal of his appeal in a long-standing litigation against Mann Engineering.

The court, on its own initiative, invoked Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to consider dismissing the motion as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found the motion to be without merit and part of a pattern of abusive litigation conduct, as Mr. Hoang had repeatedly challenged prior decisions of the court through meritless motions.

The motion was dismissed as an abuse of process, and Mr. Hoang was prohibited from filing any further motions in respect of this appeal without leave of a judge of the court.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant sued the respondents in negligence, alleging that the respondents improperly obtained an enforcement order during garnishment proceedings which caused the appellant's employer to terminate his employment.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding no duty of care was owed.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, holding that a judgment creditor seeking to realize on a judgment through garnishment proceedings does not owe a duty of care to the debtor to avoid causing harm to the debtor's ongoing employment.

The appeal was dismissed.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision.

The appellants sought to appeal an order of Justice Edward M. Morgan dated June 6, 2018.

The respondents were successful on the appeal.

The court determined costs payable to the successful respondents.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action arising from an assault during a soccer game.

Brandon Gomes punched Michael Da Silva during a match, resulting in injury.

The appellants claimed negligence in supervision and breach of the Occupiers Liability Act against the respondents.

The motion judge found no evidence that Gomes' prior conduct was predictive of violent behaviour, that the respondents breached any standard of care, or that the playing field was unsafe.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding the motion judge made no palpable and overriding errors and that the appellants failed to present sufficient evidence to raise genuine issues for trial.

The appellant clinic and respondent chiropractor had a business arrangement that broke down over a fee-splitting dispute.

The respondent abruptly left the clinic, leading to claims and counterclaims.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondent for loss of income.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by granting summary judgment in the face of conflicting evidence without explaining how the conflict was resolved or deploying the fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04.

The judgment was set aside and the parties were left to pursue their claims.

The City of Hamilton appealed a trial judgment finding it liable in negligence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge applied the correct standard of care and that her findings were supported by the evidence.

The Court also found that the trial judge correctly applied the 'but for' test for causation, noting that causation is a practical question of fact best answered by ordinary common sense.

The self-represented appellant appealed an order finding a settlement agreement enforceable.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence and argued the settlement was signed under duress.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence test was not met and the motion judge did not err in concluding the settlement, signed while the appellant was represented by counsel, was enforceable.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant Bank appealed an order striking its amended third party claim without leave to amend for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the pleading failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.06(8) by not providing particulars of the alleged fraud or misrepresentation.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred by making findings of fact and relying on inadmissible evidence on a Rule 21.01(1)(b) motion.

The appeal was allowed in part to grant the Bank leave to amend its third party claim.

The plaintiff, a commercial cattle farmer, brought a proposed class action against a cattle feed manufacturer and the federal government for economic losses resulting from the closure of foreign borders due to a case of mad cow disease (BSE).

The defendants moved to strike the claims for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding it was not plain and obvious that the negligent manufacture claim against the feed manufacturer or the negligent regulation claim against the government would fail.

However, the court agreed it was plain and obvious that the manufacturer owed no duty to warn farmers who did not purchase its feed.

All three appeals were dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action for a declaration of ownership of a property he lost in power of sale proceedings.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding there had been an appraisal and that the property's development potential was not properly marketed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusion on the appraisal was supported by evidence and the marketing argument was not raised at trial.

The appellants, majority shareholders of a family company, appealed a trial judgment finding them liable for oppression and breach of trust against the minority shareholders.

The trial judge found they breached their fiduciary duties by purchasing their sisters' shares and by paying themselves excessive management compensation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding no breach of trust in the share purchase given the company's precarious financial position at the time and the minority's failure to complain.

However, the Court upheld the finding that the retroactive management compensation was oppressive and excessive.

The cross-appeal was allowed in part to award prejudgment interest on the excessive compensation.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing its summary judgment motion and its appeal of a land transfer tax assessment by the Minister of Finance.

The dispute involved whether a transfer of land under a power of sale constituted a transfer from a trustee to another trustee, which would reduce the tax payable.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge correctly dismissed the summary judgment motion but erred in dismissing the appeal itself, as the factual context, beneficial ownership, and statutory interpretation required a full trial.

The appellants appealed a decision finding that an exchange of correspondence did not constitute a binding agreement of purchase and sale for the Guelph Storm.

They also appealed the application judge's decision to award substantial indemnity costs to the respondent on a merged contempt and enforcement application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the contract formation analysis, and upholding the costs award due to the appellants' prolonged delay and attempts to avoid their obligations.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action.

The Court of Appeal held that a failed Rule 20 motion for summary judgment by a plaintiff does not preclude a later Rule 21 motion by a defendant, as the issues are different and no issue estoppel arises.

Furthermore, a previous panel of the court had already determined the appellant lacked legal capacity to sue the respondents.

As the current action involved the same parties and factual allegations, it was an attempt to re-litigate the issues and was barred by res judicata.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant purchased a used truck from the respondent dealership, financed by the respondent bank.

After discovering engine problems and a rolled-back odometer, the appellant abandoned the truck and sued for fraud, seeking rescission and damages for lost earnings.

The trial judge awarded the appellant $8,000 for engine repairs but dismissed the fraud and consequential damages claims, while granting the bank's counterclaim for the balance of the loan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings that there was no evidence of a vehicle switch or conspiracy to defraud.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that the respondents had never effectively resigned their positions as directors of the corporation.

The appellants also brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence alleging that the respondents and their solicitors fraudulently created and backdated the corporation's by-laws.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the trial judge's credibility findings.

The motion for fresh evidence was also dismissed as untimely and not credible.

The appellants sought a rehearing of an appeal regarding the enforcement of a foreign judgment, arguing that the discoverability principle under section 48 of the former Limitations Act did not apply because the respondent knew or ought to have known the appellants lived in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants' frequent moves and alleged concealment of their address created a genuine issue for trial regarding when the respondent ought to have known of their residence in Ontario.

The appellant sued the respondent, a lawyer retained by the College of Occupational Therapists of Ontario to prosecute a discipline case, alleging misfeasance in public office, abuse of process, and reckless misstatement.

The action was based on documents prepared for the discipline proceeding.

The motions judge dismissed the action, finding the documents inadmissible under s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, confirming that s. 36(3) contains no exception for bad faith or fraud, and that reading in such an exception would defeat the purpose of the provision.

The appellants appealed the summary dismissal of their negligent misrepresentation claim against the respondent bank, and the partial judgment granted on the respondent's claim on a mortgage guarantee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the misrepresentation appeal, finding no evidence that the bank falsely represented a third party's financial status or implied he would personally guarantee the loan.

On the guarantee claim, the Court held that the motion judge properly granted judgment but varied the order to grant the full amount of $869,091.18, while staying $246,000 of that judgment pending the determination of the appellants' counterclaim for an improvident sale.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against his former wife, daughter, and a business college.

He alleged that the respondents illegally took the company from him, claiming certain documents were forged.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's finding that the appellant provided no evidence to substantiate his claims, noting that he had previously declared bankruptcy and sworn he owned no shares.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.