Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action by the motion judge.

The motion judge had dismissed the action because the appellant failed to pay security for costs into court as required by a previous order.

The Court of Appeal found a proper basis for the motion judge's conclusion and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent due to unfounded public allegations against respondent's counsel.

The plaintiff sued for a remedy under the Partnerships Act after allegedly being ejected from the partnership.

While the defendants were actively defending the case and moving to stay the action for arbitration, the plaintiff's counsel noted them in default and obtained default judgment without notice.

The motion judge refused to set aside the default judgment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the default judgment, finding that the motion judge erred in principle by failing to consider the defendants' active defense and that the plaintiff's counsel acted unreasonably and contrary to principles of civility by proceeding without notice.

The defendant appealed an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

In his reasons, the motion judge stated that the plaintiff had established a prima facie duty of care, but the formal order simply dismissed the motion without invoking Rule 20.04(4) to make a binding determination of law.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge's finding was not binding on the trial judge and the order was interlocutory, not final.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Ontario sued foreign and domestic tobacco manufacturers under the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 2009 to recover health care costs.

Six foreign defendants brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, which was dismissed.

The foreign defendants appealed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the statutory claim was analogous to a tort committed in Ontario, establishing a presumptive connecting factor under the Van Breda framework.

The Court also upheld the motion judge's findings that Ontario established a good arguable case and affirmed the costs award.

The appellant insurer appealed the trial judge's findings that the respondent qualified for non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident and that the benefits were payable for four years.

The respondent cross-appealed, claiming ongoing entitlement.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of entitlement, noting that post-accident employment does not disqualify a claimant but serves as a point of comparison under the Heath test.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the duration of benefits, reducing the payment period to approximately two years and three months based on medical assessments showing significant improvement.

The appellants, three physicians, appealed a trial judgment finding them liable in negligence for the delayed diagnosis and death of a patient from infective endocarditis.

The trial judge found the emergency room resident breached the standard of care by failing to review a SARS form containing critical clinical history, and held the supervising physician vicariously liable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal regarding the supervising physician, as vicarious liability was neither pleaded nor argued at trial.

However, the Court dismissed the appeal regarding the resident's breach of the standard of care and the trial judge's causation findings, concluding that the evidence supported the determination that a timely diagnosis would have prevented the patient's death.

A five-year-old child was injured in a single-vehicle accident while a passenger in her father's uninsured vehicle.

The child sought coverage under the uninsured motorist provisions of her mother's automobile insurance policy.

The insurer denied coverage, arguing the father's vehicle was excluded from the definition of 'uninsured automobile' because the father was the spouse of the named insured.

The motion judge found that 'the insured' in the exclusionary clause referred only to the person making the claim, meaning the child was entitled to coverage.

The Court of Appeal upheld this interpretation, finding it consistent with the purpose of the Insurance Act to internalize driving costs and the principle that ambiguities in insurance coverage should be resolved in favour of the insured.

Following the certification of a class action on behalf of franchisees against a franchisor, a group of franchisees opposed to the action waged a campaign encouraging others to opt out.

The motion judge invalidated the opt-out notices received after the campaign began, finding the campaign coercive and misleading.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in drawing an inference of intimidation without direct evidence and in holding the opposing franchisees to a standard of objectivity.

The communications amounted to acceptable intra-class debate, and the opt-out notices were reinstated.

The appellant purchased a property at a tax sale and claimed a prescriptive right or easement to use a well located on the respondent's neighbouring property.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding that the appellant's use of the well was governed by a time-limited well-sharing agreement registered on the respondent's title, which expired in 2010.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, confirming that the non-registration of the agreement on the appellant's title did not render it ineffective and that the express permission in the agreement precluded any prescriptive rights.

The appellant law firm appealed an order refusing to set aside a consent order that referred its account to an assessment officer.

The client had retained the firm under a contingency fee agreement to pursue a long-term disability claim, which settled.

The client later sought an assessment of the account.

A dispute arose over the validity of the contingency fee agreement.

The Court of Appeal held that an assessment officer generally lacks jurisdiction to determine disputes regarding the validity or effect of a retainer agreement, including contingency fee agreements.

Such disputes should be determined by a judge.

The appeal was allowed, the consent order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Superior Court of Justice.

The court was asked for assistance in settling the terms of an order granting intervener status, specifically regarding costs.

The respondents submitted a draft order, agreed to by most parties, stating that interveners would not be entitled to seek costs or be liable for costs of the appeals.

As no other parties proposed different terms, the court approved the draft order in accordance with its usual practice.

The deceased suffered life-threatening injuries in a tobogganing accident.

A physician requested an air ambulance, but the Medical Air Transport Centre advised of a two-hour delay, leading to the deceased being transported by land ambulance and subsequently dying.

The appellants sued the Province of Ontario in negligence, alleging it failed to follow its own policy to divert a nearby air ambulance carrying a non-urgent patient.

The motion judge struck the claim, finding no private law duty of care.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that it was arguable a duty of care existed based on the specific interaction and the government's alleged failure to follow its established operational policy.

The appellant appealed the order of a motion judge of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the reasons of the motion judge and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents in the amount of $5,000.

The appellant appealed and the respondents cross-appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to the appellant based on negligent misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal found that negligent misrepresentation was not pleaded and the trial judge's findings regarding non-disclosure of a commission were contradicted by the appellant's own admission.

Furthermore, there was no evidence of reliance.

The appeal was dismissed, the cross-appeal was allowed, and the counterclaim was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for unpaid invoices, arguing that a different corporate entity was responsible.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant had taken a different position at trial and that there was no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's finding of liability.

The applicants sought to appeal a decision of the Divisional Court dismissing their application for judicial review of a decision by the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that under section 6(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the matter was properly decided by the Divisional Court and could not be reconstituted as a Rule 14 application before a Superior Court judge.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's decision characterizing a letter of agreement as an absolute and unconditional sale and transfer of shares.

The appellant argued the arrangement created a security interest subject to the Personal Property Security Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was entitled to conclude on the record that the transaction was an absolute sale.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that she was involved in a minor accident and did not sustain a serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function pursuant to s. 267.1 of the Insurance Act.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's conclusion, which was based on overwhelming evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court judgment that dismissed an appeal from an arbitration award regarding an insurance dispute.

The Court of Appeal found that both the arbitrator and the lower court judge correctly interpreted the terms 'gross vehicle weight' and 'trailer'.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $12,000.

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

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motions judge's reasons and result, finding it was not a case where the motions judge could have exercised her discretion in favour of the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $7,500.