Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

The appellant sought to set aside a default judgment entered seven years earlier after her pleadings were struck for non-compliance with a costs order imposed as a condition of an adjournment.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding it was not brought promptly or pursued diligently and disbelieving the explanation offered.

On appeal, the court found no error in the motion judge's application of the test under Rule 19.08 for setting aside a default judgment, including findings of prejudice and tarnishing of the administration of justice.

This appeal concerned the interpretation and breach of a "Buyback Provision" (BBP) in an agreement for the transfer of property.

The appellant, Mr. Quinn, argued that the BBP was an option requiring strict compliance, which the respondents, Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones, failed to meet.

The Court of Appeal characterized the BBP as an option but found that Mr. Quinn's agent acted in bad faith by obstructing the respondents' attempts to exercise the option.

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower court's order for specific performance of the buyback, with a minor clarification regarding the return of items.

The appellants, Rouzbeh Behrouz and Majestic Food Service Inc., appealed an order giving effect to a Letter Rogatory from a U.S. District Court, compelling testimony and document production for a U.S. proceeding alleging violations of Iran-trade embargo laws.

The appellants argued the application judge erred by admitting inadmissible hearsay and failing to properly apply the Friction factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error.

The court affirmed the application judge's reliance on evidence for determining relevance and necessity, and his proper application of the Friction factors and balancing of Canadian sovereignty with the enforcement request.

The court also agreed that the evidence sought was not otherwise obtainable, deferring to the U.S. court's conclusion and noting that Canadian residents are not compellable witnesses in U.S. proceedings for testimony or document production.

The appellants, Joseph Campisi and Campisi LLP (lawyers), appealed a lower court decision that reopened a contingency fee agreement (CFRA) under the Solicitors Act, declared it unenforceable, ordered an assessment of fees, and ordered repayment of $150,000 for excessive fees related to an Accident Benefit Claim.

The Court of Appeal confirmed jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The lawyers challenged the finding that the Accident Benefit Claim fee was "excessive and unreasonable" and the costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's interpretation of the Solicitors Act (ss. 24 and 25) or in her assessment of the reasonableness of the fees, which considered factors beyond just hourly rates.

The costs award was also upheld.

The appellant's property was destroyed by fire caused by tenants extracting marijuana resin, and his insurer denied coverage based on exclusion clauses.

After the loss, section 129.1 of the Insurance Act was enacted, limiting such exclusions for innocent persons.

The appellant sought to apply this new provision retroactively to his claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision that section 129.1 does not apply retroactively to losses that occurred before its enactment.

The court distinguished between retrospective and retroactive application of legislation, emphasizing the strong presumption against retroactivity.

The appellant, 2088556 Ontario Inc., appealed a trial judgment that ordered specific performance and an abatement in favour of the respondent, M & M Homes Inc., regarding an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for commercial land.

The appellant had failed to provide required services by a specified deadline, leading to the respondent suing for specific performance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's decision on specific performance, the abatement, the discretionary dismissal of the appellant's motion to amend pleadings, and rejecting claims of bias and the appeal of full indemnity costs.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his application against the Law Society of Ontario and various individuals.

The motion judge had found the appellant's pleadings to be scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process due to their rambling, racist, and misogynistic content.

The Court of Appeal, exercising its authority under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissed the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, finding that the appellant's notice of appeal and factum continued the abusive conduct and raised no arguable grounds.

The appellants appealed a partial summary judgment dismissing their action against Enbridge Inc. and Enbridge Solutions Inc. The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by allowing the summary judgment motion to proceed on the eve of a scheduled ten-week trial, causing unnecessary delay and expense.

Furthermore, the Court held that the motion judge erred in concluding there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding Enbridge Inc.'s direct duty of care to the appellants, particularly concerning its public statements and policies on supervising its subsidiaries and contractors.

The appeal was allowed, the summary judgment and costs order were set aside, and the action was restored for trial.

The appellant, 9383859 Canada Ltd., appealed a lower court decision that dismissed its actions for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The respondents, Kubeskaran Navaratnam, Ronald Lachmansingh, and Marilyn Reiter Nemetz, brought motions to dismiss the appeal due to the appellant's failure to comply with a security for costs order.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted the motions, dismissing the appeal.

The court found that the appellant had not provided compelling reasons for its non-compliance and that it was in the interests of justice to dismiss the appeal, given the appellant's lack of assets and the manifest weakness of the underlying appeal.

The appellants appealed a wrongful dismissal judgment awarded by the trial judge in favour of the respondent.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the award of damages for wrongful dismissal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant, counsel for the plaintiff in an underlying action, appealed a motion judge's order requiring him to personally pay $84,000 in costs on a joint and several basis with his client under Rule 57.07.

The underlying action had been dismissed as an abuse of process and a collateral attack on prior rulings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had adequate notice of the grounds for the costs order and that the motion judge properly exercised her discretion.

The motion judge correctly concluded that the appellant caused costs to be incurred without reasonable cause by commencing an abusive action and taking unreasonable procedural steps, such as insisting on a jurisdiction motion proceeding alongside a motion to strike.

The appellant slipped and fell on ice and snow on the driveway of a rented residential property.

He sued the landlord and later added the tenant as a co-defendant.

The motions judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action against both defendants.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal against the tenant, finding the claim was statute-barred because the appellant failed to rebut the presumption that he discovered his claim on the date of the accident.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the landlord, finding genuine issues for trial concerning the interplay between the lease terms, the Occupiers' Liability Act, and the landlord's maintenance obligations under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment, arguing the trial judge failed to consider relevant evidence and erred in his reasoning regarding a house lease and a barn lease.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting it was open to the trial judge to accept the respondent's evidence and to consider the house lease for the purpose of determining the quantum of unjust enrichment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant insurer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent insured statutory accident benefits and $25,000 in damages for mental distress following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer had terminated housekeeping and transportation benefits based on a superficial independent medical examination, ignoring its own occupational therapist's recommendations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the awards for housekeeping benefits, s. 24 assessments, and mental distress, finding that peace of mind is a reasonably contemplated object of an automobile insurance contract.

The court allowed the appeal only to reduce the quantum of transportation benefits from $7,500 to $2,280 due to a lack of evidence supporting the higher amount.

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

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the lower court judge's decision.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to each respondent in the amount of $2,000.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment enforcing a settlement agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that there was no genuine issue for trial regarding whether an unconditional settlement offer was made on July 8, 2008, and accepted the following day.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding jurisdiction over its fraud claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the fraud claim was linked to Ontario because the alleged harm was suffered there through the receipt of invoices, and the business dealings were governed by a contract containing an Ontario forum selection and governing law clause.

The appellant insurance broker appealed a motion judge's order enforcing an undertaking as to damages, directing equal sharing of arbitration expenses, and awarding costs to the respondent insurer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the undertaking applied to consent adjournments of an injunction application.

The Court also upheld the equal sharing of arbitration costs based on the express terms of the agency agreement and affirmed the motion judge's jurisdiction under section 6 of the Arbitration Act.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion and fixed costs in the amount of $750, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellants appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of fact were open to him on the evidence and were fatal to the issues raised.

The court also held that the issue of interest was a question of contract and was properly pleaded.

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