Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

This costs endorsement followed a decision on an appeal and cross-appeal.

Given the divided success of the parties on both the appeal and cross-appeal, the Court of Appeal ordered that each party bear its own costs.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment ordering payment on a promissory note.

The appellant had defaulted on the loan and filed no evidence on the motion for summary judgment.

The motion judge granted summary judgment and refused to stay execution pending a third-party claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's decision, as the respondent's evidence supported an independent contract and the appellant failed to provide contradictory evidence.

The appellant, Ontario Place Corporation, appealed a trial judge's decision finding them liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for injuries sustained by the respondent, Patrick Lyng, on their premises.

The trial judge found Ontario Place 75% liable and the respondent 25% contributorily negligent for a knee injury sustained after jumping down a wet, slippery hill when a pedestrian bridge was closed.

The appeal raised issues regarding the theory of liability, causation, breach of duty under the Act, contributory negligence, and the award for loss of competitive advantage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings on all grounds, including the "train of events" causation and the damages award.

The appellant, Gamma Construction Ltd., appealed a lower court's decision regarding causation under the Insurance Act.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the application judge's conclusion that causation was not made out, applying the Amos v. The Insurance Corp. of British Columbia test.

The court found that the use of the automobile, as it related to the injuries, was merely incidental or fortuitous, and therefore, the causation finding was unassailable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The moving parties sought reconsideration of a prior decision by the Court of Appeal dismissing their appeal, presenting new evidence.

The court dismissed the motion for reconsideration, affirming that such requests are granted only in very exceptional cases and that the new evidence did not undermine the basis for the original appeal dismissal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party.

The respondent, Nordik Windows Inc., brought a motion to quash an appeal by the appellants, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada et al., arguing the underlying order was interlocutory and required leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

Aviva contended the order was final as it determined a limitation period issue.

The Court of Appeal found the motion judge's order was interlocutory, as it did not finally determine the limitation period defence, but rather dismissed the motion without a final conclusion on that issue.

The appeal was therefore quashed.

This is an appeal management endorsement concerning an appeal and cross-appeal from a class action certification decision.

The underlying action alleges gross negligence by the Government of Ontario regarding COVID-19 deaths and illnesses in long-term care homes.

The Court of Appeal addressed requests for extended factum lengths and oral hearing time.

The judge granted leave for longer factums (50 pages for the main appeal, 30 for the cross-appeal) and scheduled a two-day oral hearing.

The endorsement also provided guidance on the effective use and timely delivery of Oral Hearing Compendiums.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard appeals regarding a flooded access road.

The Township of Georgian Bluffs and the Ministry of Transportation appealed a lower court decision that found the road public, obligated the Township to maintain it, and ordered the Ministry to restore culverts and indemnify the Township.

The Crown's appeal was allowed due to procedural unfairness, as no relief was sought against the Ministry in the original application.

The Township's appeal was dismissed, affirming the public nature of the road based on historical statute labour and common law dedication and acceptance, and upholding its obligation to restore the road.

The appellants (plaintiffs in the underlying action) appealed a motion judge's decision to permanently stay their proceedings against the respondent (David Smith) due to their failure to immediately disclose partial settlement agreements with other co-defendants.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed that failure to immediately disclose settlement agreements that fundamentally alter the litigation landscape, by changing adversarial relationships into cooperative ones, constitutes an abuse of process.

The court reiterated that the sole remedy for such non-disclosure is an automatic stay of proceedings, regardless of whether prejudice is proven or if pleadings have been exchanged.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the permanent stay.

The appellant, Siavash Taheri, appealed a judgment ordering him to pay the respondent, Sina Akhavan, over $2.4 million based on promissory notes.

Taheri argued the trial judge erred in finding two separate loans instead of one, and that the trial transcript quality prevented proper appellate review.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual and credibility findings, and that the transcript deficiencies did not impede review or cause a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant, Myriam Michail, appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing her anti-SLAPP motion against the London District Catholic School Board's application to declare her a vexatious litigant.

The motion judge found that Michail had not established that the Board's application related to a matter of public interest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the determination that vexatious proceedings do not relate to a matter of public interest and that the Board's application aimed to prevent vexatious litigation, not to suppress expression.

The Court also upheld the costs award against Michail and declined to consider new constitutional questions raised for the first time on appeal.

This appeal concerned the application of well-established principles governing motions to set aside default judgment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision not to set aside the default judgment, finding no error in the assessment that there was no air of reality to the proposed defences.

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

The appellants sought to appeal an order denying a certificate of pending litigation and requested interim relief.

The Court of Appeal determined that the order denying the certificate was an interlocutory order, not a final one, meaning jurisdiction for the appeal lay with the Divisional Court, requiring leave.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal or grant interim relief pending an appeal it could not hear.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to sit as the Divisional Court, noting the appellants already had a leave motion pending there.

The appeal was quashed.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that prevented them from discontinuing their action against certain defendants and granted summary judgment dismissing the action against those defendants.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in interpreting the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding when pleadings are closed in a multi-defendant action, clarifying that pleadings are not closed until they are complete against all defendants.

However, the Court upheld the motion judge's alternative finding that the notice of discontinuance constituted an abuse of process and affirmed the grant of summary judgment, as well as the award of substantial indemnity costs, finding no genuine issue for trial and that the action was frivolous and vexatious.

Donald Parker, a class member, appealed an order denying him an extension to opt out of a class proceeding.

He brought a motion seeking an extension of time to perfect his appeal and permission to include an affidavit from his counsel in the appeal book and compendium (ABC) regarding an unrecorded lower court hearing.

The Court of Appeal granted the extension of time to perfect the appeal and allowed the inclusion of the affidavit, finding it permissible under Rule 61.10(1)(i) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, while noting that the relevance of the affidavit would be determined by the appeal panel.

This is a costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

In accordance with an agreement between the parties, the appellants were ordered to pay costs to the respondents, Mandeep Dhatt and Kulwinder Dhatt, fixed at $8,200, and to the third party respondents, Jay Brijpaul and Re/Max West Realty Inc., Brokerage, fixed at $6,700.

Both amounts were inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The purchase price under the agreement of purchase and sale dated January 22, 2016, was to be reduced by the amount of these costs.

The moving parties sought a stay pending appeal of a lower court's decision to permanently stay their underlying action in Ontario on the basis of forum non conveniens and forum selection clauses.

They also sought an order expediting the appeal.

The motion judge dismissed both requests, applying the three-part RJR-MacDonald test for stays pending appeal.

The court found that while the appeal raised a serious question, the moving parties failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The court also denied the request to expedite the appeal, finding no urgency.

Dara Fresco, the representative plaintiff in a class action, moved to quash two aspects of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce's appeals from a judgment on common issues.

Fresco argued that the issues concerning limitation periods and aggregate damages were only appealable to the Divisional Court with leave, not the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motions to quash, holding that it had jurisdiction over all aspects of the appeals under s. 30(3) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, as the determinations on limitations and aggregate damages were part of the judgment on common issues.

The Appellants sought two orders from the Court of Appeal: an extension of time to file a Supplementary Notice of Appeal to clarify that they were appealing the underlying summary judgment on both grounds raised below, and permission to file fresh evidence.

The court granted the extension for the Supplementary Notice of Appeal, finding that the Appellants had intended to appeal both issues from the outset and that it was in the interest of justice to permit this clarification.

However, the motion to adduce fresh evidence was denied, as the evidence was not new and could have been adduced at the original summary judgment motion.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissal of their negligence claim against the City of Toronto arising from a fall on a sidewalk.

The appellant sustained injuries when her foot landed on a missing paving stone on a narrow strip adjacent to the concrete sidewalk.

The motion judge found that the City had availed itself of the statutory defences under section 42(3) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, having undertaken reasonable steps to prevent the state of non-repair and having no knowledge of the defect.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal and denied the motion for leave to appeal the costs award.