Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Carpenter-Gunn J. dated June 25, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding defendants in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Dunphy J. dated May 13, 2021.

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

The appellants appealed two orders made by a case management judge authorizing the sale of an estate property and setting the terms of the sale.

The respondent Estate Trustee During Litigation brought a motion to quash the appeal on the basis that the orders were interlocutory and leave to appeal had not been obtained.

The Divisional Court held that the orders were interlocutory because they did not finally determine the substantive rights of the parties to the net proceeds of the sale.

The court further held that leave to appeal is required for interlocutory orders under s. 10(1) of the Estates Act.

As the appellants did not seek leave, the appeal was quashed.

The court also noted that the appeal would have been dismissed on the merits in any event.

The appellant contractor appealed an order discharging a substantial portion of its claim for lien for failing to perfect it within the statutory deadline under the Construction Lien Act.

The appellant argued that the deadline should be tolled due to promissory estoppel.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the claim for lien was registered on time but the certificate of action was registered late.

The Court agreed that the respondents made no representations that would give rise to promissory estoppel, and noted that allowing promissory estoppel to defeat strict statutory deadlines could undermine the certainty required by other stakeholders such as lenders.

The self-represented appellant moved to set aside the Divisional Court's decision dismissing his appeal from a Law Society of Ontario disbarment order, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias against the presiding judge.

The appellant argued that the judge's prior refusal to allow a lengthy factum, the scheduling of the appeal, and the conduct during the hearing demonstrated bias.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that routine procedural directions, standard scheduling practices, and normal appellate questioning do not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The Divisional Court noted that while the motion judge made final determinations regarding two defences, the formal order was interlocutory as it simply dismissed the summary judgment motion.

Finding that the moving party failed to meet the test for leave to appeal an interlocutory order, the court dismissed the motion.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing her claims as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The Divisional Court issued a notice considering dismissing the appeal on the same grounds, noting the claims were barred by issue estoppel and constituted improper follow-on litigation.

Finding that the appellant was litigating vexatiously and attempting to relitigate issues already decided by previous courts, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Pollak J. dated May 10, 2021.

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

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

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

The defendants appealed a decision certifying an Ontario national class action and dismissing a motion to stay the action as an abuse of process due to a parallel, certified Quebec class action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the motion judge's exercise of discretion.

The motion judge properly considered the history of the proceedings, including the defendants' failure to oppose the Quebec authorization after last-minute amendments, and reasonably concluded the Ontario action was not an abuse of process and was the preferable procedure.

The moving party, self-represented, sought a stay of proceedings and costs orders pending decisions on his multiple motions for leave to appeal.

The court dismissed the stay request without requiring responding materials, finding that the moving party had failed to comply with previous court directions and timelines, thereby disentitling himself to equitable relief.

The court set final deadlines for the moving party to serve and upload his motion materials for leave to appeal, failing which the motions would be dismissed as abandoned.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class proceeding arising from a city bus crash.

The Certification Judge had denied certification on the basis that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, noting the plaintiff's strategic choice to pursue complex systemic negligence claims while ignoring direct claims against the bus driver and the city as owner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law in the Certification Judge's discretionary preferability analysis.

Leave to appeal the costs order of the certification motion was also denied.

The self-represented moving party sought to review an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court that declined to extend the time to seek leave to appeal.

The moving party claimed to have mailed a notice of motion shortly after the decision, but the court had no record of it.

Acknowledging the delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the moving party's circumstances, the court permitted the motion to review to proceed before a panel of three judges, subject to strict terms regarding deadlines and the materials that could be filed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Steele J. dated June 8, 2021.

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 an order of Dietrich J. dated June 23, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $4,000 to the responding party.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim against a car dealership for the value of a provincial government rebate on an electric vehicle.

The appellant argued on appeal that the dealership lied under oath and knew the car would not qualify for the rebate, arguments not raised at trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the dealership's statement of eligibility was not a promise or guarantee, and that the contract placed responsibility for seeking the rebate on the buyer.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment that awarded the respondent contractor payment for construction framing work, including 'extras', and partially allowed the appellants' counterclaim for deficiencies.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge inverted the burden of proof, misapprehended evidence, and made unsupported credibility findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no inversion of the burden of proof and no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual or credibility assessments.

The appellant appealed an application judge's order requiring it to vacate a gas bar premises.

The application judge had found a month-to-month commercial tenancy existed and ordered vacant possession.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the application judge erred by resolving disputed material facts regarding whether the appellant had an ownership interest in the property rather than a tenancy.

The appeal was allowed and the application was converted to an action to proceed to trial.

The moving party, a lawyer and law professor, brought a motion to set aside an order dismissing his motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from a Small Claims Court default judgment regarding an unpaid $20,000 loan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting it was brought out of time and the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The court highlighted the moving party's pattern of delay and uncooperative behaviour, awarding costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

The applicant appeared before the court for a show cause hearing regarding civil contempt.

The court accepted the applicant's apology for a prior outburst and declined to make a finding of contempt for his failure to appear.

For a prior finding of civil contempt, the court sentenced the applicant to time served, accounting for 8 days spent in custody on remand.

The applicant remains subject to an order requiring prior judicial permission to commence any proceedings in Ontario.