Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

The Appellants sought an order to vacate Certificates of Pending Litigation (CPLs) and a writ of seizure and sale registered against their properties, pending the determination of their appeals from a judgment and a CPL order.

They proposed paying the judgment amount into court as security to facilitate the sale of the properties to a third party.

The Respondent opposed, arguing that prior agreements required the full sale proceeds to be paid into court and that the Appellants had failed to disclose the sale agreement earlier.

The court found that the prior agreements contemplated a sale before the final determination of damages and that the Appellants' liability was now fixed by the judgment.

The motion was granted, allowing the CPLs and writ to be vacated upon the Appellants paying $1,750,000 into court as reasonable security, balancing the parties' interests.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that dismissed their action as statute-barred by the 15-year ultimate limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

They argued that exceptions for concealment of information and incapacity applied, and also challenged the derivative nature of claims under the Family Law Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence to support the asserted exceptions to the limitation period and affirming that Family Law Act claims are derivative and tied to the principal claim, not independent.

Following the release of the court's decision on the appeal, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent was awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $12,000, inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court that struck out certain allegations in his statement of defence and counterclaim as irrelevant, scandalous, and vexatious under Rule 25(11)(b).

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, granting leave to amend the pleadings to include allegations of misconduct relevant to defences against claims for aggravated, exemplary, and punitive damages, as well as potential equitable defences and claims regarding duress, undue influence, or unconscionability.

The court emphasized the need for proportionality and case management.

The costs award was set aside with no costs awarded throughout.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal of a trial judgment in an employment law matter.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's costs award of $82,600 to the respondent, arguing for either no costs or a reduced amount of $20,000.

The respondent sought to maintain the trial judge's award.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the merits but reduced the costs award to $40,000, considering that while the respondent succeeded on the constructive dismissal claim, the trial was significantly lengthened by unsuccessful claims and the respondent failed to proceed under the simplified procedure despite being eligible to do so after other claims were struck out.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision regarding the effective date of an automobile insurance policy cancellation.

The parties agreed that if the broker was negligent in cancelling the policy effective July 26, the appellant was bound.

The arbitrator preferred the insured's evidence that she wanted full coverage until she left, and found the broker negligent in telling the insurer to cancel coverage effective July 26.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator's finding was supported by the record.

The appellant sued the Crown for injuries sustained at a provincial park boat launch.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the tort action because the appellant failed to provide the required 10-day notice under section 7(3) of the Proceedings Against the Crown Act.

On appeal, the appellant argued that strict compliance was not required and sought leave to amend the claim to plead breach of contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the legislature did not intend a flexible approach to the notice periods under the Act, and that the proposed contractual claim was time-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Following a successful appeal, the parties were unable to resolve the costs of the motion below.

The Court of Appeal fixed the costs of the motion below at $4,500 in favour of the appellants, payable out of the proceeds of the sale of the property, noting that much of the time claimed related to necessary housekeeping matters regarding the sale.

Following a judgment awarding the respondents their costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity scale, the court reviewed the parties' written submissions.

The court fixed the respondents' costs of the appeal at $45,000, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes.

The appellants appealed a judgment finding that their dealings with the respondent bank did not result in a final arrangement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was open to the trial judge to find no final arrangement was reached.

Alternatively, the court found that the guarantee and chattel mortgage were continuing obligations that were not extinguished by the December 1999 financial agreement.

The appellants, land developers, retained the respondent engineering firm to prepare a geotechnical report on soil conditions for a townhouse development.

The report estimated pile foundations would need to be driven to an average depth of 20 feet, but ultimately they had to be driven to 60 feet, resulting in additional construction costs.

The appellants sued for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation.

The trial judge dismissed the action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the failure to drill a sixth borehole was due to inaccessibility and that there was no evidence the respondent inaccurately interpreted the borehole data.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 appellants appealed an order of the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the motion judge's conclusion that the parties never reached a meeting of the minds on an arbitration clause or a choice of laws provision.

The Court also agreed that the transfer motion was premature because the statement of defence had not yet been filed and the witnesses were unknown, making it impossible to determine the most convenient venue.

The appellant appealed an order enforcing Minutes of Settlement.

Under the settlement, the respondent was required to provide two quotes for hazardous waste management, and the appellant was to pay half of the lowest 'acceptable' price.

The Court of Appeal found that the quotes provided were shams, as the individuals submitting them did not carry on a legitimate hazardous waste management business and lacked the necessary licences and equipment.

The motion judge erred by focusing on whether the prices were reasonable rather than whether the quotes were acceptable.

The appeal was allowed and the order enforcing the settlement was set aside.

The plaintiffs initially sued for repayment of loans and on a guarantee.

At trial, the plaintiffs argued breach of contract for the purchase of shares.

The trial judge granted judgment to the plaintiffs based entirely on provisions of the Ontario Business Corporations Act (OBCA) relating to share transfers, despite the plaintiffs expressly disavowing any remedy under the OBCA.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding it was a breach of natural justice to grant judgment on a basis not pleaded or argued.

A new trial was ordered because the Court of Appeal could not make the necessary findings of fact regarding the contract terms or damages.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal determined that the trial judge's order was for a single payment of not more than $25,000, exclusive of costs.

Consequently, the appeal fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Divisional Court, and the Court of Appeal ordered the matter transferred there with no costs.

The appellants appealed an order striking their counterclaim, which sought punitive damages based on an independent actionable wrong akin to defamation arising from allegations in the respondent's statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that allegations in a statement of claim are absolutely privileged and cannot form the basis of such a counterclaim.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding that the deceased misappropriated $547,000 in trust monies and tracing those funds into the purchase of a house.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the house was fully purchased with the misappropriated funds and was therefore held in trust for the respondents.

The Court also rejected the appellants' arguments regarding laches, limitation periods, and adverse possession, dismissing the appeal.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's decision setting aside a conveyance under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and the Assignments and Preferences Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the burden of explanation for near relatives or the finding that the appellant was unable to pay his debts at the relevant time.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim arising from the loss of part of a shipment of watches seized by Bahamian authorities after customs documentation was incorrectly completed.

The court held that the respondent carrier had contracted not only to provide customs clearance services but also to deliver the shipment with customs clearance to the consignee's business address.

The consignee's conduct in attempting to obtain customs clearance did not break the chain of responsibility because, for that purpose, it acted as the carrier's agent.

The appeal was allowed and judgment was directed for the full claim together with pre-judgment interest and costs.