Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

The appellant applied for an order requiring consumer reporting agencies to remove debts over two years old from his credit report, arguing that the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 should apply.

The application judge dismissed the application.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the Limitations Act does not apply to the Consumer Reporting Act.

The passing of a limitation period precludes court enforcement but does not extinguish a debt, and the reporting of such debts is expressly contemplated by the Consumer Reporting Act.

The appellants appealed an order declaring a family trust invalid and vesting its assets in the respondent Trustee in Bankruptcy.

The respondent moved to dismiss the appeals, and the alleged trustee of the trust brought a cross-motion.

The Court of Appeal found significant irregularities regarding the notice provided for the original hearing, noting that the hearing proceeded in the absence of the undischarged bankrupt and any representative of the trust.

The court set aside the original order and remitted the matter for a new hearing in the Superior Court of Justice to ensure procedural fairness.

The appellant dentist appealed an order dismissing his motion for summary judgment, which argued that the respondent patient's dental malpractice action was statute-barred.

The respondent commenced her action within two years of her last appointment, but the appellant argued the limitation period began earlier when she first complained and threatened legal action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the claim was not discovered until after the treatment and dentist-patient relationship ended, as the appellant had advised the respondent the issue was not his fault and he would try to repair it.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to extend an expired timetable in a medical malpractice action against the respondent doctors and hospital.

The motion judge applied the four-factor test from Marché d'Alimentation Denis Theriault Ltee v. Giant Tiger Stores Ltd. and found the history of delay and inactivity by the appellant's lawyers to be inexcusable.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's assessment of the factors, including prejudice to the respondents given the passage of almost eight years since the surgery.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed two orders striking out two statements of claim against the Landlord and Tenant Board and related individuals without leave to amend.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred, lacked jurisdiction, and exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the motion judge's decisions and no basis for the bias allegation.

The moving parties sought a review of an order by a single judge of the Court of Appeal denying leave to appeal under s. 193(e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and ordering security for costs.

The Court of Appeal held that it does not have jurisdiction to review a decision of a single judge granting or denying leave to appeal under the Act.

The motion for review was dismissed, and the appeal was quashed.

The appellant, a former university professor, appealed a jury verdict finding him liable for defaming the respondent in his blog posts.

The appellant had abandoned the trial on the second day and called no evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed his arguments regarding fair comment, limitation periods, and freedom of expression, noting his failure to lead evidence.

The court also upheld the trial judge's order for a broad permanent injunction, finding it justified by the appellant's persistent defamatory campaign and likelihood of continuation.

The appellants brought a motion before the Court of Appeal.

The court dismissed the motion as unfounded, noting that the moving party would have the opportunity to challenge the lower court's decision at the scheduled appeal hearing.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the respondents, payable before the appeal is heard.

The appellant failed to appear in court for the hearing of his appeal, claiming he was advised by court staff that the appeal was not proceeding.

The court rejected this explanation but granted the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal.

The court noted the appeal would have failed on its merits regardless, and awarded costs of $13,000 to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict finding it liable for injuries sustained by the respondent child.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the jury's verdict was reasonable as the appellant's failure to train staff in child supervision provided a basis for finding a breach of the duty of care.

The court also found no ambiguity in the jury's answers regarding causation when given a full and liberal reading.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

On consent, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned without costs.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action on a summary judgment motion, arguing the motion judge erred in refusing to further adjourn the hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the refusal to adjourn was a reasonable exercise of discretion given the history of the claim and a previous adjournment granted at the appellants' request.

The action was properly dismissed under Rule 20.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and perfect the appeal in a class proceeding regarding franchise volume rebates.

The delay was caused by an administrative error.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that while the delay was short and explained, the proposed appeal lacked any merit as it challenged purely factual findings without providing any basis for the appeal.

The appellants appealed a trial decision granting the respondents title to a disputed strip of land between their adjoining properties by adverse possession.

On appeal, the appellants argued for the first time that the finding of adverse possession did not justify granting title to the full width of the 2.03 metres vested by the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the issue of width was not raised at trial, the survey was presented on consent, and there was ample support in the record for the trial judge's finding.

The respondent moved to vary a judgment of the Court of Appeal awarding $8,000 in costs to the appellant following a successful appeal to set aside an administrative dismissal.

The respondent argued that costs should not follow the event because it was not at fault for the delay, and that it had not agreed to the $8,000 quantum.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, noting that the digital recording confirmed the respondent's counsel had agreed to the quantum, and found no reason to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim against his title insurer on summary judgment.

The appellant argued that the previous use of his property as a marijuana grow operation rendered the title unmarketable and was covered under the policy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the previous use of the property was a physical defect, not a title defect, and therefore did not render the title unmarketable under the terms of the title insurance policy.

The appellants appealed an order denying them leave to amend their statement of claim.

The proposed amendments sought a declaration that s. 30 of the Pension Act violates s. 7 of the Charter, aiming to access the respondent's federal pension to enforce any future judgment arising from an assault.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding the declaratory relief should have been sought against the federal government and was premature before a final determination of the current issues.

However, the court allowed amendments to the claim against Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario.

The appellant appealed an order enforcing a 2005 settlement for the sale of shares, arguing he lacked mental capacity to consent and instruct counsel at the time.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant failed to prove lack of capacity, lack of instructions, the respondents' awareness of any incapacity, or that the settlement was unfair.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to award the appellant interest on the $700,000 purchase price, as the respondents had the benefit of the appreciating shares in the intervening years.

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

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that it could not go behind findings made in earlier proceedings and agreeing with the motion judge that the appellants' claims had no potential merit.

The appeal was dismissed with substantial indemnity costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a motion regarding compliance with a court order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, deferring to the motion judge's factual finding that while compliance was imperfect, there was no deliberate or wilful violation of the order.