ODC 2015

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision refusing to set aside or strike out a Mareva injunction order on the basis of fraud.

The motion judge had found fraud but refused to strike the order because the fraud was not material to the original decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order and that the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general or public importance.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board refusing to grant an extension of time to request a review of an earlier order.

The earlier order awarded the respondent tenant compensation for lost property and rent abatement following an eviction without notice.

The appellant argued he was denied natural justice because he did not receive notice of the hearing, as the documents were served on his paralegal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that service on the legal representative was proper under the Board's Rules and the Board's refusal to extend time was reasonable.

The tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing her application for $200,000 in damages for substantial interference with quiet enjoyment and harassment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was fact-driven and raised no issue of law.

The court also dismissed the landlords' request for a vexatious litigant order, noting that such an application must be brought before a single judge of the Superior Court of Justice under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Deputy Director of Titles under the Boundaries Act regarding the eastern boundary of her property.

The Deputy Director found that the boundary was the western shore of Three Mile Lake, rejecting the appellant's claim that her property included land on the eastern shore.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found that the Deputy Director's reliance on the original plan and patent, rather than other extrinsic evidence, was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to strike portions of a statement of claim that asserted a claim in conspiracy.

The appeal was heard together with a companion case involving similar issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, applying the same principles and reasons as in the companion case, and awarded agreed costs of $10,000 to the respondent.

The plaintiff insurer brought an action against the defendants for fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy, alleging an elaborate insurance fraud scheme involving fraudulent medical assessments.

The defendants moved to strike the conspiracy claim under Rule 21, arguing it was redundant and merged with the nominate torts based on the doctrine of merger.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious that the conspiracy claim was redundant.

On appeal, the Divisional Court affirmed the decision, holding that the doctrine of merger should not be applied at the pleadings stage and should be left for the trial judge to determine on a full evidentiary record.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order requiring her to pay $26,232.53 owing on a small business line of credit to the respondent bank.

The appellant argued that the bank had verbally promised not to close the account, that the bank treated her unfairly due to her disability, and that the rules of civil procedure violated her Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the bank had a contractual right to demand repayment, the requirements for promissory estoppel were not met, and the Charter does not apply to private corporations or provide a defence to a legal debt.

Following a successful appeal from a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, the appellant sought partial indemnity costs of $12,367.42.

The Board argued that no costs should be awarded against it due to its role as an administrative tribunal.

The Divisional Court held that because the Board took an active, adversarial role on the appeal, an award of costs was appropriate.

Finding the claimed amount excessive, the Court fixed costs at $5,000 all inclusive.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision that summarily dismissed his application for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant alleged that a community house staff member violated his rights by asking him not to sit on a neighbour's bench pursuant to a 'Good Neighbour' policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator's decision was reasonable and correct, as the applicant failed to link the impugned actions to any prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Code.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting judgment to the respondent for an unpaid loan of $15,000.

The trial judge found the corporate appellants liable for breach of contract and the individual appellants liable for unjust enrichment.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in finding personal liability, drawing an adverse inference from a failure to testify, and using pleadings to assess credibility.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error, noting that the trial judge's credibility assessments and use of pleadings were reasonable and legally correct.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that dismissed her motion for financial disclosure prior to a first case conference.

The respondent disputed the existence of a spousal relationship and argued he had no obligation to provide financial disclosure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that there was no urgency and that the disclosure issue should be addressed at the case conference.

The appellant hardwood retailer appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it liable for negligent misrepresentation regarding the sale of hardwood flooring.

The flooring degraded due to inadequate humidity levels in the respondents' condominium.

The trial judge found the appellant breached its duty to advise the respondents of the product's specific, higher-than-normal humidity requirements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on causation, the respondents' lack of actual knowledge, the inapplicability of an exclusionary clause on the invoice, and the quantum of damages.

Following the settlement and abandonment of an application for judicial review regarding the Crown's duty to consult, the interveners and the respondent Ontario Power Authority sought costs against the applicants.

The Divisional Court dismissed the requests for costs.

The court held that interveners typically do not receive costs and that imposing costs on First Nations in disputes concerning constitutional rights and reconciliation would inappropriately deter such claims.

The court also denied costs to the Ontario Power Authority, noting it played a secondary role and the Crown itself did not seek costs.

The appellants appealed an order enforcing a mediated settlement agreement, arguing the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction, Rule 49.09 did not apply to minutes of settlement, and the settlement was signed under duress and was unconscionable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it had jurisdiction because the settlement and counterclaim amounts were under $50,000.

The court held that Rule 49.09 applies to minutes of settlement and found no evidence of duress or unconscionability, noting the individual appellant's subsequent actions affirmed the settlement and his choice to proceed unrepresented did not invalidate the agreement.

The plaintiff sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a summary judgment decision that denied his claim for damages in lieu of bonus payments following his wrongful dismissal.

The plaintiff's counsel had inadvertently missed the appeal deadline due to a misunderstanding of the rules.

Applying the test for extending time, the court found that the plaintiff had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was reasonably explained by solicitor error, there was no prejudice to the defendant, and the proposed appeal had sufficient merit.

The court granted the extension of time and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The self-represented plaintiff appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her various claims against the defendants, which included compensation for a lost diamond ring, a stolen outfit, unreplaced locks, car damage, and legal expenses arising from alleged false statements to the Children's Aid Society.

The Divisional Court applied the Housen standard of review and found no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's conclusions that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove her claims.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to dismiss the applicant tenant's appeal for delay.

The applicant had previously sought relief from forfeiture after the respondent terminated the commercial lease for unpaid rent, but the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a notice of appeal but failed to perfect the appeal within the required time.

Applying the factors for an extension of time to appeal, the court found no explanation for the delay, prejudice to the respondent who was not receiving rent, and no merit to the proposed appeal.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed for delay.

The applicant, a federal crown corporation operating a national passenger railway, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Assessment Review Board regarding the valuation of its Ottawa passenger station for municipal taxation purposes.

The applicant argued the station had only nominal value due to the lack of a competitive market for passenger rail, while the respondent argued for a hypothetical market value.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the legal correctness of the Board's decision to create a hypothetical market and noting the case involved an important question of law regarding the valuation of railway stations.

The respondent landlord was successful on a motion to quash the tenant's appeal from an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The landlord sought costs of the motion.

The court awarded costs to the landlord on a substantial indemnity basis, noting the appeal manifestly lacked substance and the tenant's conduct prevented the landlord from selling or living in the property.

Costs were fixed at $1,289.45.

The moving party sought leave to appeal two interlocutory orders: one dismissing her summary judgment motion and awarding costs, and another dismissing her motion to set aside that costs order.

The court applied the strict test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the moving party failed to establish conflicting decisions, reason to doubt the correctness of the orders, or matters of general importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.