Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion to dismiss the claim based on an arbitration clause in a collective agreement.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to consider whether the order was final or interlocutory.

The parties agreed the order was final.

The Divisional Court found it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $2,500.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order of the motion judge dated January 11, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 on a partial indemnity scale to the respondents.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Ferguson J. dated February 2, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

Three appeals were heard together to determine whether the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has jurisdiction under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend the two-year limitation period for filing appeals set out in s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The Divisional Court held that s. 7 does grant the LAT jurisdiction to extend the s. 56 limitation period, as the time limit is fixed 'under an Act' (the Insurance Act).

The Court dismissed the insurers' appeals challenging the LAT's jurisdiction and its exercise of discretion to grant extensions, finding no errors of law.

In the third appeal, where the adjudicator had found no jurisdiction, the Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the LAT to consider the extension request.

The appellant property owner entered into a contract with the respondent builder for the construction of a luxury home, paying a $3.8 million non-refundable deposit.

After the appellant failed to pay over $10.4 million in interim invoices, the respondent obtained summary judgment.

The appellant appealed solely on the issue of whether the deposit should be credited against the judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the deposit was intended to secure completion of the contract and was forfeit due to the appellant's breach, rather than acting as a prepayment for interim invoices.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting that the responding party only submitted a brief letter in response.

The moving party brought an unopposed motion for leave to appeal the decisions of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Justice Tranquilli dated March 29, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, as no cost summaries were filed.

The defendants appealed the certification of a class action claiming intrusion upon seclusion following a massive data breach by third-party hackers.

The certification judge had allowed the claim to proceed, finding it was not plain and obvious that the novel claim would fail.

The Divisional Court majority allowed the appeal and set aside the certification of the intrusion upon seclusion claim, holding that the tort requires an actual intrusion by the defendant, not merely a failure to prevent an intrusion by others.

The plaintiffs' economic interests were adequately protected by the tort of negligence.

The moving party sought an extension of time to perfect a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) that denied minor variances for a lot severance.

The moving party missed the deadline to perfect the motion by over a year.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, finding that while there was a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was extensive without a satisfactory cumulative explanation, the proposed appeal lacked merit as it did not raise questions of law of general importance, and the respondent would suffer prejudice from the ongoing delay.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from endorsements refusing his requests to adjourn an upcoming trial.

The court directed the moving party to serve and upload his materials by a specific deadline.

The moving party failed to upload any materials by the deadline.

Given the imminent trial date, the Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 3, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed in the amount of $2,500.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order denying summary judgment.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the question of whether the dispute resolution clause (GC8) in the contract between the parties extinguished the responding party's right to bring a court action.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving parties, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Emery J. dated January 29, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $2,500.

The applicant, a funeral home, sought judicial review of the Bereavement Authority of Ontario's decision to grant a conditional licence to a competing crematorium and visitation centre located on the same property.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of standing.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the applicant lacked private standing as it was not directly affected by the decision and its rights were not infringed.

The court also found the applicant lacked public interest standing, as the case did not raise a serious justiciable issue and the applicant's true motive was to eliminate a competitor.

The respondent, having been successful on the appeal, sought costs of $34,377.28 on a substantial indemnity basis relying on a settlement offer.

The appellant argued he was a public interest litigant and that no costs should be ordered.

The Divisional Court found the appellant did not demonstrate he was a public interest litigant and held that costs should follow the event.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding Rule 49 did not apply, and instead awarded the respondent costs of $20,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal regarding trustee compensation on a passing of accounts, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent (former trustee) sought full indemnity costs of $134,394.86, while the appellants argued for partial indemnity costs payable by the trust and sought their own costs from the trust.

The Divisional Court held that the respondent was entitled to full indemnity costs because he incurred them in his capacity as trustee.

The court fixed the respondent's costs at $90,000 all-inclusive, ordering a blended costs award where the appellants pay 60 percent and the trust pays 40 percent.

The appellants were ordered to bear their own costs.

The respondents brought a motion to adjourn or stay an upcoming appeal pending the outcome of an application before the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal.

The respondents argued that the Tribunal might find the subject matter of the underlying action to be within its exclusive jurisdiction, which would preclude the Superior Court from enforcing a settlement of that action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issue on appeal—whether a legally enforceable settlement agreement was reached—was distinct from the merits of the claim and likely outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

The court also found that the respondents failed to bring their jurisdictional challenge and request for a stay on a timely basis.

The moving party, a defendant in the action, brought a motion for leave to appeal.

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