Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated December 17, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $5,000 inclusive.

The appellant contractor appealed a motion judge's order discharging and vacating its construction lien.

The motion judge had found that the lien expired prior to perfection because the contract was terminated or abandoned more than 150 days before the certificate of action was registered.

On appeal, the contractor argued the motion judge erred in finding termination or abandonment and improperly used enhanced fact-finding powers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings of termination and abandonment, and concluding that the motion judge correctly applied the evidentiary burden without resorting to enhanced fact-finding powers.

Following an appeal that was allowed in part, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The appellant sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $59,600, while the respondent argued each party should bear their own costs.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Divisional Court awarded costs to the appellant fixed at $40,000 all inclusive.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal on the basis that the impugned order was final, meaning an appeal could be brought as of right.

The court set a deadline for any motion to extend the time to appeal and ordered no costs for the leave motion.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order and requested a stay.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the question of whether the motions judge erred in principle by relying on the responding party's evidence from an adjourned cross-motion without allowing the moving party an opportunity to respond.

The request for a stay was refused, and costs were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 payable by the moving parties.

The respondent Registrar successfully resisted an application for judicial review regarding the cannabis retail lottery and sought costs.

The applicants argued that costs should not be awarded to a decision-maker that successfully resists judicial review, relying on an alleged overriding principle.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, noting that in Ontario, costs are awarded to administrative tribunals acting in an adversarial role to defend their decisions.

The court awarded the Registrar costs of the stay motion and the application, fixing the quantum at $40,000.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a $4,000 costs order made in a family law proceeding.

The motion was brought before a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The panel dismissed the motion, holding that motions for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court must be brought before a single judge, not a panel of three judges.

This rule applies regardless of whether the appeal is from an interlocutory order, a costs order, or an administrative tribunal.

The appellant was successful on appeal and cross-appeal and sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $30,000.

The Divisional Court found the claimed hours and rates disproportionately high and fixed the costs of the appeal at $17,500 all inclusive.

The court declined to exercise its jurisdiction to award costs of the trial, leaving that determination to the trial judge or an assessment officer due to a prior reservation of jurisdiction and a dispute over an agreement between counsel.

The appellant creditor appealed a decision dismissing its motion for summary judgment against the respondent guarantors for a mortgage shortfall.

The motion judge had excluded the appellant's affidavit evidence as hearsay and found genuine issues for trial regarding alleged oral representations by the appellant's employee that the guarantee would not be enforced.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in law by excluding the affidavits and failing to apply the parole evidence rule.

Given the 'entire agreement' clause in the guarantee, the alleged oral representations raised no genuine issue for trial.

Summary judgment was granted against the borrowers and guarantors for the deficiency.

The appellants brought a motion for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal to the Divisional Court from a Small Claims Court decision.

The underlying decision had dismissed the appellants' motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of their claim.

The court applied the Kefeli factors and found that while the appellants had an intention to appeal, they failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their subsequent delay.

The court also found that the respondents would suffer prejudice and that the merits of the appeal were dubious.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision awarding costs of $15,000 to the plaintiff and ordering two Brampton lien actions to proceed peremptorily.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The court held that the scheduling order was interlocutory and not appealable under the Construction Lien Act.

Regarding costs, the court found no error in principle in the motions judge's decision to award costs against the successful defendants, as they had reversed their position on proceeding by a Rule 21 motion, resulting in costs thrown away.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order which found that the first page of a reporting letter written to the defendant was protected by solicitor-client privilege and that the privilege had not been waived.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision and noting that the issue of privilege waiver would be explored at an upcoming summary trial.

Costs were fixed at $2,500 in the cause.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's decision regarding an oral contract, arguing that the trial judge made findings of credibility and fact not supported by the evidence.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge did not misread or misinterpret the evidence, and that her findings regarding the settling of accounts were supported by the record.

The court concluded there was no palpable or overriding error and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $2,000 to the respondents.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside a default judgment in a construction lien action.

The action against the appellant was based on a personal guarantee of a corporate defendant's obligations.

The Divisional Court upheld the master's decision, finding that service by registered mail complied with the Construction Lien Act.

The court also agreed that the appellant failed to meet the three-pronged test to set aside a default judgment, specifically failing to provide a plausible explanation for the default and delaying eight months before bringing the motion.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff was successful on an appeal regarding the enforcement of an employment agreement containing a non-exclusive attornment clause.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs for both the appeal and the underlying motion.

The defendant argued that costs should be reserved to the trial judge due to the inter-relationship of the issues.

The court rejected the defendant's argument, holding that costs should follow the event, and awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $13,500 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

Following an appeal of a Rule 76 summary trial judgment that dealt with modest amounts and took less than two hours, the court issued an endorsement on costs.

Given the divided success on the appeal, the court ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The appellant car dealership appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for breach of contract and awarding $7,785 in damages plus over $14,000 in costs for selling a used van with a tampered odometer.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of liability but found the trial judge erred in calculating damages by comparing the financing costs of the defective van with a newer, more expensive replacement van.

The Court recalculated the damages to $4,996.75 based on the base purchase price minus the trade-in credit, and reduced the trial costs award to $5,000 all-inclusive.

The defendant employer brought a motion for leave to appeal an order refusing to strike out the statement of claim against it.

The employer argued that at common law, an employer cannot be impleaded by an employee seeking a remedy for their union's breach of the duty of fair representation.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the common law is dynamic and a plaintiff should not be denied the possibility of establishing a right to a remedy at the pleadings stage.

The applicants brought a motion before a panel of the Divisional Court to set aside interlocutory orders made by a single judge in a pending judicial review application challenging the cancellation of the spring bear hunt.

The panel allowed the motion in part, permitting the applicants to examine the Premier and the Minister of Natural Resources under Rule 39.03 on the narrow issue of whether the Minister exercised independent discretion or was dictated to by the Premier.

The panel upheld the single judge's orders restricting the applicants to four expert witnesses and directing that the respondents' motion to strike portions of affidavits be heard by a single judge prior to the main application.