Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

Following a successful appeal where the appellant Estate successfully defended the respondent's claim for a one-half interest in a property, the court determined the costs for the proceedings in the court below.

The Estate sought partial indemnity costs of $169,508.

The court reduced this amount by $30,000 to account for two unsuccessful motions brought by the Estate during the litigation.

Costs were fixed at $134,478.68 payable by the respondent to the Estate.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $184,211.58 and declaring an equitable mortgage on their properties for unpaid corporate advances.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by failing to draw an adverse inference from missing documentation, rejecting a non est factum defence, and finding joint and several liability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, credibility assessments, or refusal to draw an adverse inference.

The appellant commenced an action in January 2012 claiming negligence, misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and deceit relating to an investment and loan arranged in June 2008.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant argued she was unaware of her right to sue until receiving letters from the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada in 2011.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant knew the material facts of her claim by May 2009 at the latest, and that a lack of appreciation of the legal significance of those facts does not toll the limitation period.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

The appellant, Onyx Corporation, appealed a trial judgment finding it wrongfully terminated an oral subcontract with the respondent, S & J Gareri Trucking Ltd., for snow removal services.

The trial judge found the oral subcontract was for a five-season term, mirroring the appellant's main contract with the municipality, rather than a season-by-season term.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge applied the correct principles for interpreting oral contracts and made no error in assessing damages based on expected revenues less mitigation.

The moving parties brought a motion to quash an appeal.

The responding party argued the appeal should proceed, asserting the order below was not made on consent and the court lacked jurisdiction, while also appealing the costs component.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion and quashed the appeal, finding that the communication contemplated by the order below had already been sent, rendering the order spent and the appeal moot.

The court also noted that no leave to appeal costs had been sought.

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring an application for leave to appeal from the Divisional Court.

Prior to the hearing, the moving party demanded the presiding judge recuse himself, alleging bias, racism, and corruption based on previous decisions.

The moving party failed to attend the teleconference hearing.

The judge declined to recuse himself, finding no air of reality to the bias claims.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed on the merits, as the proposed appeal raised no issues of public importance and had no realistic chance of success.

The Town brought an application under s. 440 of the Municipal Act to enjoin the appellant from contravening its zoning and site alteration by-laws, alleging the appellant operated an illegal waste disposal business.

The appellant claimed the properties were used for a legal non-conforming peat moss and triple mix business.

The application judge granted the injunction based on affidavit evidence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the application judge erred by resolving conflicting material facts and credibility issues solely on a written record and by failing to make factual findings to support the site alteration injunction.

The appeal was allowed and a trial of the issues was directed.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer paid income replacement benefits but denied non-earner benefits in 2004.

After income replacement benefits were terminated in 2006, the appellant sought non-earner benefits in 2009 and commenced an action in 2012.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action as time-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that the two-year limitation period for non-earner benefits began to run when the insurer initially refused them in 2004, even while the appellant was receiving income replacement benefits.

The appellants appealed a decision finding that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction over their claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and breach of contract against the respondent banks.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the contract was entered into in St. Kitts and the tort was completed there, meaning Ontario lacked presumptive connecting factors.

The Court also agreed with the motion judge's forum non conveniens analysis that St. Kitts was the appropriate forum, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal from an order refusing to strike fraud allegations in the Statement of Defence.

The appellant conceded that the order appealed from was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal and awarded costs to the respondent on a substantial indemnity basis.

The appellant condominium corporation terminated its management agreement with the respondent for cause.

The respondent sued in Small Claims Court for breach of contract, but the trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the respondent's conduct cumulatively amounted to gross negligence or recklessness.

The Divisional Court set aside the trial judgment, holding the reasons were insufficient for appellate review.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the trial judgment, finding the Divisional Court erred by failing to read the reasons in the context of the trial record and the informal nature of the Small Claims Court.

The appellant and respondent reached a settlement in a copyright infringement class action, which the motion judge refused to approve.

The appellant appealed the refusal to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that an order refusing to approve a class action settlement is an interlocutory order, not a final order, because the litigation continues and the merits of the case remain to be determined.

Therefore, jurisdiction to hear the appeal lies with the Divisional Court, with leave, rather than the Court of Appeal.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal on the basis that the underlying decision—a refusal to remove opposing counsel and a related refusal to grant an adjournment—was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the refusal to grant an adjournment was intertwined with the interlocutory refusal to remove counsel.

The motion to quash was granted and the cross-motion was dismissed.

The appellant bean sprout producer sued a public health inspector for negligence and defamation following a salmonella outbreak investigation that led to a product recall.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding the inspector was protected by statutory immunity under s. 95(1) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act and there was no evidence of bad faith.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the appellant failed to provide any evidence of bad faith, recklessness, or gross negligence to displace the statutory immunity.

The appellants appealed a decision regarding whether a leasing company's insurer is protected by the $1 million liability cap under s. 267.12 of the Insurance Act for bodily injury or death arising from the use of a leased motor vehicle.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the application judge that s. 267.12 precludes a lessee from coverage under a lessor's insurance policy beyond the qualified $1 million cap.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party condominium corporation brought a motion to quash an appeal of an application judge's order appointing an arbitrator.

The responding parties sought to appeal the appointment, arguing the application judge erred in referring all issues to the arbitrator without assessing their arbitrability.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that section 10(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1991 explicitly precludes any appeal from a court's appointment of an arbitral tribunal.

The respondents in the underlying appeal brought a motion to quash the appeal on the basis that the order appealed from was interlocutory.

The appellant sought an adjournment of the motion, which the court denied as unnecessary for the adjudication of the motion to quash.

The court found that the order in question, which denied an adjournment and set a date for a motion to strike, was clearly interlocutory.

As such, any appeal lay to the Divisional Court with leave.

The motion was allowed and the appeal was quashed for want of jurisdiction.

The appellant, a judgment creditor of a beneficiary of an estate, sought to secure an interest in a house bequeathed by the deceased.

The deceased had granted the beneficiary only a life interest in the house.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's dismissal of the claims, finding that the beneficiary had no proprietary interest in the house for the creditor to attach.

Furthermore, the Fraudulent Conveyances Act did not apply because the deceased was never indebted to the appellant.

The appeal and costs appeal were dismissed.

The plaintiffs obtained a judgment against the defendant in Belgium and subsequently sought to enforce it in Ontario after discovering the defendant had moved to Canada.

After the plaintiffs obtained summary judgment recognizing the foreign judgment, the defendant appealed, triggering an automatic stay of enforcement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to lift the stay and for security for costs.

The Court of Appeal partially lifted the stay to allow the plaintiffs to examine the defendant in aid of execution, finding the appeal appeared frivolous and the plaintiffs had suffered hardship due to delay.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed as there was insufficient evidence that the defendant lacked assets in Ontario.

The moving parties sought a review of an order dismissing their motion as abandoned, claiming it had been adjourned and should not have been on the list.

The Court of Appeal found that regardless of what happened on the return date, the underlying motion lacked merit because a previous request for an extension of time to appeal had already been denied, there was no appeal pending, and the properties had already been sold.

The motion was dismissed.