Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

Following the release of the court's endorsement in the appeals, counsel for the respondents wrote to the court concerning the disposition of the agreed upon costs.

The Court of Appeal issued an addendum awarding costs of $14,000 to the estate trustee and another $14,000 to the bank, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The respondents obtained summary judgment in the Louisiana Bankruptcy Court against the appellants on personal guarantees.

The respondents applied to enforce the judgments in Ontario.

The appellants argued the Louisiana Bankruptcy Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.

The motion judge dismissed this argument, noting the appellants had raised the issue in Louisiana and failed to appeal the foreign court's ruling that it had jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was not open to the appellants to re-litigate the issue of subject matter jurisdiction in Ontario after participating in the foreign proceedings and failing to appeal the jurisdictional ruling.

The appellants, residents of Ecuador, brought negligence actions against Copper Mesa Mining Corporation, its directors, and the TSX defendants for alleged human rights abuses committed by security forces in connection with a mining project in Ecuador.

The appellants claimed the TSX defendants owed a duty of care not to list Copper Mesa's shares, and the directors owed a duty to avoid acts contributing to the abuses.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motions judge's decision to strike the claims under Rule 21.01(1)(b), finding that the pleadings failed to establish the requisite foreseeability and proximity under the Cooper-Anns test to ground a novel duty of care.

The appellant purchaser appealed a trial judgment finding an Agreement of Purchase and Sale null and void.

The agreement was conditional upon the purchaser being approved to assume the first mortgage.

The trial judge found that the condition was not fulfilled, the purchaser had no intention of assuming the mortgage, and the condition could not be waived.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample support in the record for the trial judge's conclusions.

The appellant sold a property to the respondent, who covenanted not to resell it without first building a specific type of house.

The respondent breached the covenant by reselling the property for a profit without building the house, though the subsequent purchaser did build a compliant house.

The trial judge found the appellant suffered no compensable damages and declined to order disgorgement of the respondent's profit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's refusal to exercise his discretion to award disgorgement damages in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict dismissing their claim under the Dog Owner's Liability Act.

They argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the meaning of 'attack' and in admitting hearsay evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury instructions did not lead to error and noting the lack of objections at trial regarding both the instructions and the hearsay evidence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellants were awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale for both the appeal and the proceeding below.

The costs were fixed at $45,000 for one group of appellants, $20,000 for another group, and $60,000 for a single appellant, inclusive of GST and disbursements.

The appellant Rogers acquired Call-Net and subsequently terminated the respondent real estate broker's services without cause.

The broker sued for commission based on a termination clause that provided for payment based on work completed.

The trial judge awarded $800,000, representing 40% of the projected commission for a 10-year lease mandate.

On appeal, Rogers argued the trial judge misinterpreted the contract's termination and compensation clauses and improperly relied on subjective intentions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly interpreted the contract based on objective surrounding circumstances and the clear wording of the termination clause.

The broker's cross-appeal seeking a higher commission percentage was also dismissed.

The Court of Appeal issued an endorsement amending paragraph 106 of its reasons released November 26, 2009.

The amendment provides that the respondents are awarded costs of the proceeding below in the amount of $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his application for an injunction to prevent the respondents from keeping a locked gate on a private road, and granting the respondents' cross-application to close the road under the Road Access Act.

The application judge found the appellant had alternate road access via a trail on Crown land using four-wheel-drive vehicles.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge's finding of alternate access was supported by evidence.

The Court further held that once alternate access was established, the appellant had no standing to oppose the road-closing application.

The respondents' cross-appeal regarding a condition in the road-closing order was also dismissed.

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

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to demonstrate the respondent would suffer no prejudice if the default judgment were set aside.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed an order striking their statement of claim and dismissing their action, which was obtained via an ex parte motion by the respondent Centrecorp.

The Court of Appeal found it inappropriate for Centrecorp to proceed ex parte when the appellants had requested a 7-day extension to answer undertakings and asked to be advised if the extension was refused.

The appeal was allowed and the order set aside, conditional upon the appellants paying outstanding costs orders by a specified date.

The appellant appealed a judgment extinguishing its title to a triangular parcel of land based on adverse possession.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to consider the nature of the use of the surplus land and whether the respondent's actions were sufficiently inconsistent with that use.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the respondent's predecessor in title had paved the parcel, placed curb stones, and used it constantly for parking, effectively excluding the true owner.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that they were required to reimburse the respondents for both the principal and interest on borrowed monies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no reversible error in the credibility assessment that formed the basis of the finding regarding the parties' true intentions.

Although the trial judge erred regarding the admissibility of a letter and the application of the contra proferentem doctrine, these errors were not material to the outcome.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility assessments, as well as the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's factual findings were reasonably open to him on the evidence and that the appellant failed to demonstrate palpable and overriding error.

The court also upheld the costs award, noting that costs should follow the result of the trial.

The appellants appealed an order of Justice Cosgrove dated July 8, 2003, which made findings of contempt.

The Court of Appeal agreed with counsel that it was an appropriate case to allow the appeal and set aside the findings of contempt in accordance with a filed draft order.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its action for delay.

The Court of Appeal found that the motions judge erred in principle in finding prejudice due to inexcusable delay, as the prejudice alleged was general in nature and there was no evidence of missing or incapacitated witnesses.

The appeal was allowed and the order set aside, but without prejudice to the respondent to move again if the appellant failed to answer undertakings within thirty days.

Costs of the appeal and motion were awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a decision finding that a transaction involving cows was an option to purchase rather than a security interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the applications judge's finding that the substance of the transaction was an option to purchase, which does not create a security interest under the Personal Property Security Act.

The court also declined to review the procedural issue of whether a trial of an issue should have been directed, as the parties had agreed to the procedure followed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Following an appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement.

The appellant was awarded $20,000 in costs, subject to a reduction for an unsuccessful appeal regarding two U.S. companies and the unsatisfactory nature of the statement of claim.

The two U.S. respondents were awarded costs of $5,856.53 and $500, respectively.

The appellant, executor of the estate of John F. McLennan, appealed a decision ordering the discharge of a collateral mortgage and the payment of approximately $5.7 million in property sale proceeds to the estate of John K. McLennan.

The appellant argued that a 1996 assignment agreement transferred both the collateral mortgage and the deceased's personal guarantee to the father's estate.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts' findings that the assignment agreement only transferred the collateral mortgage, which was worthless without the underlying debt and personal guarantee.

The appeal was dismissed.