Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal two interlocutory orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs fixed at $5,000 in the cause of the appeal.

The parties were directed to schedule a teleconference with the Divisional Court Administrative Judge.

A case management conference was held regarding an application for judicial review and an urgent motion for a stay of a provincial regulation.

The impugned regulation's effective date was delayed, rendering the urgent stay motion unnecessary.

The parties agreed on a schedule for the application, but the court declined to set a hearing date due to the suspension of ordinary court operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The urgent stay motion was withdrawn without costs, and the parties were directed to seek further directions for scheduling once court operations resume or via videoconference.

A case management conference was held to provide procedural directions for an upcoming application for judicial review.

The court ordered that the hearing proceed via video conference using ZOOM technology.

Directions were provided regarding the use of a password-protected electronic dropbox for document filing, formatting of electronic materials, and the submission of factums, compendiums, and costs outlines.

The landlord brought an urgent motion to enforce an eviction order during the COVID-19 provincial eviction moratorium, arguing the tenant's continued occupancy jeopardized a real estate closing.

The court first determined that the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the order after dismissing the appeal, but the parties agreed to have the judge hear it as a motion for directions under Rule 60.17 of the Rules of Civil Procedure sitting as a Superior Court judge.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the landlord's evidence of harm speculative and noting the moratorium was intended to protect tenants like the respondent, who was unable to move because his new landlord could not evict the existing tenant due to the pandemic.

During a case management teleconference, the respondent CIBC sought to schedule a motion to quash the appellant's Small Claims Court appeal.

The court noted that the appeal raised arguable issues and that scheduling a video conference hearing on the merits would be more proportionate and efficient than hearing a preliminary motion to quash.

CIBC agreed to withdraw its motion, and the court issued directions for the exchange of materials and the scheduling of the appeal hearing.

During a case management conference, the respondent requested an adjournment of the application for judicial review until an in-person hearing could be held, objecting to a video conference format.

The court dismissed the request, noting that party consent is not required for video hearings under the COVID-19 Practice Direction.

The court found the matter suitable for a video hearing as it relied on a written record with no oral testimony, and emphasized the need to maintain court operations during the pandemic.

The applicant, PETA, sought judicial review of Astral Media's decision to remove its animal rights advertisements from Toronto bus shelters and the City of Toronto's refusal to compel Astral to reinstate them.

Astral had removed the ads following a complaint from Canada Goose, citing its private contract with PETA which allowed removal of unacceptable content.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction because the decisions were private and contractual in nature, not exercises of statutory or public authority subject to public law remedies.

Animal Justice Canada intervened in support of the applicant.

A case management conference was held to set procedural directions for a motion for leave to appeal a Local Planning Appeal Tribunal decision.

The court ordered the hearing to proceed via video conference and provided detailed instructions for the electronic filing of documents, factums, and compendiums.

A case management endorsement setting out the procedural and technological directions for an upcoming virtual appeal hearing before the Divisional Court.

The court provided instructions on the use of Zoom, electronic document filing via a drop box, hyperlinking in factums, and time allocations for oral argument.

A case management endorsement setting out procedural directions for an upcoming virtual appeal hearing before the Divisional Court.

The court provided instructions on the use of ZOOM technology, dress code, and the electronic filing of documents, including hyperlinked factums and compendiums.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate, which allowed the insured's appeal from an arbitrator's denial of statutory accident benefits.

The Director's Delegate found that the arbitrator erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for denying income replacement and medical benefits.

Applying the Vavilov framework, the Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness.

The Court concluded that the Director's Delegate reasonably found the arbitrator's reasons inadequate, as they failed to address the principal evidence or explain the reasoning process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

A case management endorsement setting the procedure for a virtual appeal hearing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondents sought to delay the appeal due to pandemic-related work restrictions and an anticipated motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The court rejected the delay, noting the appeal had been scheduled since January and the fresh evidence motion was simple enough to be prepared within the remaining five weeks.

Directions were given for electronic document filing and video conference protocols.

A case management endorsement setting out directions for a virtual hearing via Zoom before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The court provided a schedule for the service of materials and detailed instructions for the electronic filing of documents, factums, and compendiums using a password-protected drop box.

The appellants appealed a judgment allowing an oppression application that granted the respondents sole authority to conduct a civil action.

The respondents had sold their shares in a company to the appellants but retained the financial benefit and cost obligations of an ongoing lawsuit.

The relationship deteriorated, and the appellants ceased pursuing the lawsuit and withheld information.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the appellants' conduct violated the respondents' reasonable expectations, nor any error in the remedy granting the respondents control of the litigation.

Following the dismissal of his appeal, the appellant opposed the respondent's request for costs, arguing the court made errors in its decision.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, noting the appellant's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal had already been dismissed with costs.

The court fixed the respondent's costs of the appeal at $15,000.

A case management endorsement providing directions for an upcoming virtual hearing before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court outlined procedures for videoconferencing, electronic filing of materials, and the format of the hearing.

The court also directed that Ontario's motion to stay the impugned decision be adjourned to the panel hearing the application, rather than being heard by a single judge.

The applicants, commercial landlords, sought leave to appeal a costs order after successfully obtaining a writ of possession against the respondent tenants for unpaid rent.

The applications judge had denied costs to the successful landlords, citing unconscionability and relying on unresolved factual issues from separate ongoing litigation between the parties.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding strong grounds that the applications judge erred in principle by relying on factual issues that were explicitly not before him when exercising his costs discretion.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class proceeding involving product liability claims against the manufacturers of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for defective design because they did not identify a specific alternative design.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that regulatory advisories provided 'some basis in fact' to certify the common issue of whether the defendants breached their duty to warn learned intermediaries of the risks associated with the filters.

The respondent on an appeal brought a motion for security for costs.

The appellant was appealing a Small Claims Court judgment enforcing a promissory note, having raised an unsuccessful defence of set-off.

The Divisional Court found there was good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and that the appellant had insufficient assets to pay a costs award.

The court ordered the appellant to post $7,500 as security for costs.