Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

An appeal from a trial judgment dismissing claims by a steel company against a former employee who established a competing business.

The trial judge found that the employee was not a fiduciary and therefore could not breach fiduciary duties.

Although the employee breached employment duties of good faith, loyalty, and fidelity by misappropriating business documents (constituting conversion), the trial judge found no damages were proven.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's findings were open to her on the record and that her reasons were adequate for meaningful appellate review.

The appellant appealed a default judgment obtained by the respondents in a real estate dispute.

The respondents, as purchasers, alleged that the appellant, as vendor, made negligent misrepresentations regarding property taxes in MLS listings for two properties.

The motion judge declined to set aside the default judgment.

On appeal, the appellant argued the judgment was irregularly obtained.

The Court of Appeal upheld the default judgment, finding that the statement of claim provided a sufficient basis for the judgment as it included allegations of negligent misrepresentation and a plea that the respondents would not have entered into the transactions but for the misrepresentations.

The appellant appealed two orders dismissing and adjourning its application for an interpretation of an Ontario Regulation regarding the 2008 remuneration of Justices of the Peace.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the proper mechanism to challenge the government's response to a remuneration commission's recommendation is through judicial review on a standard of rationality, not by seeking an interpretation of the implementing Regulation.

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

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the matter was clearly moot and involved no issue that would warrant the court exercising its discretion to hear it anyway.

No costs were ordered.

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

The Court of Appeal found no error in the lower court's order based on the material placed before it.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a decision striking its pleading.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the pleading was beyond repair.

The appellant failed to plead that the respondents joined with the original tortfeasor to continue a false publication, and the respondents' alleged failure to stop the falsehood did not make them joint tortfeasors.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding a receivership order, arguing his consent to the order was obtained through fraud or conditioned on a $150,000 advance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the motion judge's conclusion that there was no evidence of fraud or conditional consent in the material before him.

The appellants, out-of-province resort operators, appealed decisions dismissing their motions to stay or dismiss personal injury actions for want of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal convened a five-judge panel to reconsider the Muscutt test for assumed jurisdiction.

The Court modified the Muscutt test by elevating the weight given to Rule 17.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, creating a presumption of a real and substantial connection for most of its subrules.

The Court also collapsed the fairness factors and clarified the distinction between jurisdiction simpliciter and forum non conveniens.

Applying the revised test, the Court found a real and substantial connection between Ontario and the appellants in both cases and upheld the motion judges' decisions that Ontario was the appropriate forum.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that the parties were to share a lottery prize equally based on their established practice and relationship.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact regarding a central phone call and the parties' confirmatory conduct were entirely open to him and reasonable.

The respondent previously succeeded on an appeal declaring that the parties had entered into an enforceable settlement agreement.

The resulting order included a paragraph directing compliance with the agreement, which the motion judge subsequently interpreted as requiring the appellants to assert their repudiation claim in a new action rather than as an excuse for non-performance.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appellants' appeal, finding that the original panel had not considered the disputed paragraph or its implications for the repudiation claim.

The court set aside the motion judge's order and directed the parties to submit their questions directly to the original panel for clarification.

The appellant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

At trial, the jury found neither the appellant nor the respondent negligent, accepting evidence that an unknown driver cut in front of them and caused the sudden braking.

The appellant's action was dismissed.

On appeal, the appellant argued the unknown driver evidence should have been excluded because it was not pleaded.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the evidence was known to the appellant and admitted without objection at trial.

The court also upheld the jury's assessment of damages as defensible based on the evidence of soft tissue injuries.

The appellant appealed an order regarding his capacity with respect to treatment, arguing that the Consent and Capacity Board member misunderstood the law and that his case should be heard de novo by a three-person panel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board member properly understood the jurisprudence despite an unfortunate use of terminology, and that the assignment of a single member was reasonable.

The court also declined to award costs to the appellant for the lower court proceedings.

The matter was referred back to the Board.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their action for a declaration of ownership or an easement over a small triangle of land on a shared driveway.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the respondents had established adverse possession, noting the finding was based on a reasonable assessment of witness testimony.

The Court also upheld the conclusion that no prescriptive easement was acquired, as there was no evidence the appellants were prevented from accessing their utility fixtures.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable on a promissory note.

He argued there was an absence of consideration and relied on the defence of non est factum.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that consideration existed due to the family relationship and benefit to the appellant's son, and that the appellant could not rely on non est factum because he carelessly chose not to read the document.

The award of pre-judgment interest was also upheld.

The added parties appealed an order striking out their pleadings for willful failure to obey court orders.

They sought to adjourn their appeal to be heard with the husband's appeal.

The Court of Appeal declined the adjournment and dismissed the appeal on two grounds.

First, the appeal was moot because the respondent had proceeded to an uncontested trial and obtained a final judgment, and the appellants had not sought a stay of the order striking their pleadings.

Second, the appeal was dismissed due to the appellants' ongoing and deliberate refusal to comply with numerous court orders.

Costs of $20,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim that it communicated confidential information regarding the availability and purchase price of a commercial property under an oral confidentiality agreement.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to make adequate findings of fact and credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons permitted meaningful appellate review.

The trial judge reasonably concluded the information was not confidential and noted the absence of any written documentation supporting the alleged agreement.

The appellant appealed and the respondents cross-appealed from a judgment concerning restitution, negligent misrepresentation, conversion, and assignment/preference issues.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or legal analysis.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed without costs.

The appellants appealed the judgment of the motions judge.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the decision and dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $2,500.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a fraudulent conveyance action.

The central issue was whether the trial judge erred in applying the law relating to the burden of explanation.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge correctly concluded the threshold necessary to shift the burden of explanation to the defendant had not been reached, noting the absence of evidence regarding other creditors or the defendant's inability to meet debts at the time of the conveyance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondents to the motion sought to quash an appeal on the basis that an order transferring a statutory proceeding under the Mining Act to the Superior Court of Justice was interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal held that the transfer order finally disposed of the application brought under s. 107 of the Mining Act and was therefore a final order within s. 6(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

Applying the reasoning in Buck Bros. and the Hendrickson line of authority, the court concluded that the real matter in dispute in the court proceeding was whether the statutory proceeding should be transferred.

The motion to quash was dismissed with costs.