Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The moving party, BMW Canada Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal an order made by a single judge of the Divisional Court who had determined an appeal from the Small Claims Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for want of jurisdiction, noting that under the Courts of Justice Act, leave to appeal such an order must be sought from the Court of Appeal.

No costs were awarded as neither party raised the jurisdictional issue.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement.

The moving party was ordered to pay costs to the responding parties in the agreed amount of $10,000.

The appellant, a defendant in a defamation action, appealed a motions judge's decision refusing her leave to amend her statement of defence.

The motions judge had found the proposed amendments were properly pleaded and caused no prejudice, but concluded the motion itself was an abuse of process because the appellant had previously sought broad disclosure without particularizing her defence.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that Rule 26 is broadly permissive and the motion to amend was not an abuse of process, as the amendments were integral to the defence and caused no prejudice.

The court permitted the amendments but upheld the motions judge's adverse costs award against the appellant for her prior litigation conduct.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated December 23, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The responding parties sought costs of $31,050, but the court awarded a reduced amount of $3,000 because much of their material was not responsive to the issues.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 28, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The respondent slipped and fell on an icy driveway while walking toward a waiting rideshare vehicle.

The License Appeal Tribunal found the incident was an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, entitling her to benefits.

The insurer appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Tribunal erred in law by conflating the 'but for' test with the direct causation test.

The court held that while the vehicle's location led to the respondent being on the icy driveway, the use or operation of the vehicle was not the direct cause of her injuries.

The appellant, a lawyer acting on his own behalf, sought to appeal orders made in two family law proceedings involving different mothers and children.

The respondents and intervenors requested that the appeal be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court found that the appeal was a clear attempt to relitigate matters that had already been determined years prior and contained scandalous allegations against a judicial officer and opposing counsel.

The court dismissed the appeal proceedings as an abuse of process.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Justice Belobaba dated October 29, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the responding parties, the plaintiffs, fixed in the amount of $35,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Justice Koehnen.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As agreed by the parties, the moving parties were ordered to pay costs of $10,000 to the Mintz Family Group and $7,500 to SRTS LLP.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Justice Roberts dated March 12, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of $5,000 to the defendants.

The appellants, who own taxicab licences in Toronto, sought to certify a class proceeding against the City of Toronto for economic losses allegedly caused by the City's failure to enforce its by-laws against Uber and other private transportation companies.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding it plain and obvious that the City did not owe the appellants a private law duty of care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the City's regulatory role and its interactions with the appellants did not create a relationship of proximity, and that policy reasons regarding indeterminate liability negated any prima facie duty of care.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the March 2, 2021 decision of McEwan J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs in the amount of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The appellant hired the respondent to demolish two buildings under a fixed-price contract.

During demolition, hidden asbestos was discovered, and the respondent charged for its removal as an 'extra'.

The Small Claims Court trial judge found the appellant had agreed to the extra work and awarded damages based on quantum meruit, discounting the respondent's ballparked figures by 30%.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's factual findings were entitled to deference and his application of quantum meruit was appropriate given the informal mandate of the Small Claims Court.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an interim order previously issued by the lower court.

The Divisional Court reviewed the motion in writing.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were ordered payable to the respondent in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an interim order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the corporate respondents.

The moving party defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party plaintiffs.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from an unreported order of Koehnen J. dated March 6, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing, awarding costs of $2,500 to the responding parties.

The court issued a Rule 2.1.01 notice to consider whether the appeal should be summarily dismissed.

The appellant provided submissions arguing that the effect of section 137.1(5) on a motion to discontinue is not settled in the jurisprudence.

The court agreed that the appellant raised a tenable legal argument and declined to dismiss the appeal, ordering the parties to agree on a schedule for the exchange of appeal materials.

The self-represented appellants appealed a Master's decision denying them leave to amend their statement of claim and prohibiting the father from acting as agent for his adult son.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master correctly concluded that the proposed amendments lacked material facts, failed to properly plead conspiracy, and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The Court also upheld the Master's rulings on the respondents' cross-motions and her refusal to address an unpleaded conflict of interest allegation against opposing counsel.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding them liable for $25,000 in damages plus costs for breaching a Buyer Representation Agreement (BRA) with the respondent real estate brokerage.

The appellants argued the trial judge made several factual and legal errors, including finding the BRA enforceable despite their claim that it was not adequately explained.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's conclusions that the appellants understood the BRA, deliberately bypassed the respondent to avoid paying commission, and engaged in unreasonable conduct warranting elevated costs.