Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The appellant appealed a summary trial decision that allowed the respondent repair shop to recover $30,358.06 for repairs to a vehicle from funds paid into court.

The trial judge had found that although the respondent's non-possessory lien was invalid and unenforceable under the Repair and Storage Liens Act due to a lack of signed acknowledgment, the appellant's payment of the disputed funds into court under s. 24 converted the invalid lien into a valid charge on the funds.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that s. 24(13) cannot be used to turn an invalid, improperly registered lien into a valid one.

The respondent's claim was dismissed and the funds were ordered to be paid out to the appellant.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision refusing to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing their medical negligence action for delay.

The action was dismissed in 2013, but the appellants did not learn of this until 2019 due to their former lawyer's conduct.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's decision, finding no error in the application of the Reid test.

The Master reasonably concluded that the defendants' interest in finality after a six-year delay outweighed the appellants' interest in a hearing on the merits, particularly given the appellants' potential claim against their former lawyer.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her action against the municipality for property damage caused by falling tree branches.

She also brought a motion to admit fresh evidence regarding subsequent tree damage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the new evidence irrelevant to the issues at trial.

The appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge made no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in concluding the municipality took reasonable care and did not cause a substantial interference with the appellant's property.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from two prior decisions, including an order restricting his ability to seek fee waivers.

The court had previously issued case management directions requiring the moving party to provide contact information, address the fee waiver issue, and set a deadline for serving motion materials, failing which the motions would be dismissed as abandoned.

The moving party failed to comply with the directions, aside from providing an email address.

Consequently, the court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal as abandoned.

The applicant sought to challenge an interlocutory case conference decision of the lower court, making scandalous and vexatious allegations against the presiding judge.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 considering dismissal of the application.

After receiving the applicant's submissions, which failed to address the court's concerns and repeated the scandalous allegations, the court dismissed the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The moving party, the College of Nurses of Ontario, brought a motion to introduce further evidence on an appeal to address the appellant's allegation of a denial of procedural fairness.

The appellant brought a cross-motion to adduce responding evidence.

The single judge of the Divisional Court held that pursuant to s. 134(4)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 61.16(2), a motion to admit further evidence on appeal must be made to the panel hearing the appeal.

Accordingly, the single judge lacked jurisdiction and adjourned the motion and cross-motion to be heard by the appeal panel.

The moving party defendants sought leave to appeal from an interlocutory order dismissing a Rule 21 motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting that the underlying order was interlocutory and not binding on the trial judge.

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

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.

The moving party sought an extension of time to move for leave to appeal and leave to appeal an interlocutory order regarding the admissibility of documents.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The court noted that the underlying interlocutory decision is not binding on the trial judge regarding the admissibility of the impugned documents at trial.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $5,060.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of Ramsay J. dated June 30, 2021.

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

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from a benefit permit order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $7,418 to the responding parties.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from a power of attorney order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties were ordered to pay costs of $8,640 to the responding parties.

Following a successful appeal from a Small Claims Court decision, the appellant sought costs of $9,454.44, while the respondent proposed $6,000.

The Divisional Court fixed the costs of the appeal at $8,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST, noting the appellant's actual costs were over $42,000.

The moving party sought leave to appeal interlocutory orders.

A non-lawyer claiming to be an Indigenous Grand Chief purported to represent the moving party without court authorization, filing vexatious materials and refusing to follow case management directions based on claims of Indigenous sovereignty.

The court barred the unauthorized representative from acting in the Divisional Court without leave, dismissed the representative's purported motion to review case management decisions under Rule 2.1.01, and ordered the moving party to personally comply with court directions or face dismissal of his motions for leave to appeal.

Following a successful application for judicial review where the impugned regulation was declared ultra vires but Charter claims were dismissed, the applicants sought costs of $153,499.07 on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondents argued for no costs or a maximum of $35,000.

The Divisional Court found the applicants' requested costs excessive given it was a one-day hearing and a large portion related to unsuccessful Charter claims.

The court fixed costs at $50,000 all inclusive.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Doi J. dated September 18, 2020.

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

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

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order under the Partition Act.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal on the basis that the impugned order was a final order under the Partition Act, meaning an appeal lies to the court as of right and leave is not required.

The court deemed the appeal to have been commenced and provided directions for a potential stay motion.

The self-represented applicants sought various corrections and additions to the record and transcripts for an upcoming Divisional Court hearing.

The court ordered that agreed-upon changes be deemed made to the transcripts and allowed the applicants' written closing statement and the employer's document compendium to be added to the record.

However, the court denied requests to supplement the transcripts based on memory, to alter the record based on translation objections, or to remove a photograph from the record.

The court also set a timetable for factums and the hearing on the merits.