Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The appellant, UPI Inc., appealed a Master's order that dismissed its motion for summary judgment against the plaintiffs and granted summary judgment dismissing its third party claim against Kemar Mechanical Limited.

The Divisional Court assumed jurisdiction over both the interlocutory and final components of the Master's order.

The court upheld the Master's decision refusing to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim, finding a triable issue regarding UPI's duty to communicate about its furnace maintenance program.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding the third party claim, concluding that if UPI were found liable, its right to indemnification from Kemar also presented a triable issue.

The respondents brought a motion to continue a sealing order over the court file in an application for judicial review of decisions to exclude and transfer students following an alleged violent incident.

The respondents argued that the sealing order was necessary under the Education Act and the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court applied the Dagenais/Mentuck test and found that a complete sealing order was not necessary, as a less intrusive alternative was available.

The court rescinded the sealing order but directed that the court file be edited to remove the names and identifying information of the accused, the victim, and the witnesses.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order setting aside a noting in default.

The motions judge had set aside the noting in default because the requisition incorrectly stated the ground as failure to file a statement of claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the order and concluding that the issues raised were not of general importance.

The appellants appealed a costs award of $60,267.39 made against them following the dismissal of their $50,000 claim under the simplified procedure.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by failing to apply the principle of proportionality and by focusing on the expectations of the winning party rather than the reasonable expectations of the losing party.

The costs award was reduced to $40,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment.

The Divisional Court found that the individual appellant was never properly served with the statement of claim and that there was confusion at the hearing regarding which documents were being referenced.

The appeal was allowed, the default judgment was set aside, and the appellants were granted 20 days to file a statement of defence.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that conducted an accounting between the parties following a failed joint venture in an excavating business.

The trial judge found the appellants owed the respondents a net amount of $3,271.60.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge exhibited bias, ignored evidence, and decided the case on an unpleaded issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no bias, no reviewable error in the accounting, and that the pleadings broadly contemplated an accounting.

The respondents' cross-appeal for costs was also dismissed.

The moving party, THICC, sought a stay of a Master's order requiring the Minister of Health to file a section 10 record that included THICC's allegedly confidential information, pending an appeal of that order.

The underlying judicial review challenged the Minister's approval of hospital infrastructure plans.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried regarding the interpretation of a prior consent confidentiality order, irreparable harm if the information was disclosed before the appeal, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay to preserve the appeal's utility.

The applicant sought to set aside his expulsion from the YMCA, arguing he was denied natural justice because he was not given a hearing before being expelled for alleged public indecency in the men's shower.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the YMCA's by-laws permitted expulsion without a hearing when a member's conduct breached the law.

The court held that the YMCA acted in good faith, followed its own rules, and afforded the applicant adequate procedural fairness given the nature of the voluntary association and the prior warnings he had received.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal in a slip and fall action, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the successful respondents.

The respondents sought $14,659, while the appellant argued she was impecunious and the claimed fees were excessive due to duplication by senior and junior counsel.

The court held that the appellant's financial circumstances were irrelevant to the costs issue, but agreed that the opposite party should not pay for duplication of counsel on a non-complex appeal.

Costs were fixed at $8,500 all inclusive.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' judicial review application, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the respondents.

The court fixed the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board's costs at $13,594.16 on consent.

The court declined to award costs for two prior motions that were unrelated to the judicial review application.

The court fixed the co-respondent Kenmar's costs at $8,806.10, noting that the WSIB was the primary respondent.

The purchasers signed an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a new home and paid a $10,000 deposit, but attempted to cancel the agreement the next day.

The Small Claims Court ordered the vendor to return $9,300 of the deposit, finding the vendor had not proven damages.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the judgment and dismissed the purchasers' claim.

The court held that a true deposit may be forfeited without proof of damages upon a purchaser's default, and the purchasers failed to establish that the forfeiture was unconscionable or out of all proportion to the losses suffered to warrant relief from forfeiture.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that the respondent undertook property renovations in detrimental reliance on the appellants' negligent misrepresentations.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error.

The evidence showed the respondent commenced renovations long before any representation was made, and the trial judge failed to establish a substantial connection between the alleged losses and the misrepresentations.

The trial decision was set aside and the claim dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the parties were unable to agree on costs and filed written submissions.

The respondent College sought costs of $27,039.05, noting the extensive preparation required, including responding to constitutional arguments that were abandoned late.

The appellant argued the appeal was largely a repetition of an earlier interlocutory motion and suggested costs be fixed at $10,000.

The Divisional Court fixed the costs of the appeal payable by the appellant to the respondent at $19,000 in fees plus disbursements.

The defendants, Nortel Networks Corporation and John Roth, appealed an interlocutory order that struck only portions of the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and struck the entire statement of claim against the appellants, finding it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead the essential elements of negligent misrepresentation, failed to plead material facts to overcome the business judgment rule regarding alleged mismanagement, and lacked standing as an individual shareholder to bring claims for conversion of company property.

The applicant sought costs following a successful judicial review application.

The parties agreed that costs should be awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant claimed $10,796.66, while the respondent argued for a lower amount.

The Divisional Court considered the respondent's conduct, which might have warranted solicitor and client costs, but also noted that the arguments were substantially similar to those at the lower level, allowing for economies in preparation.

Applying the principle of reasonable expectations, the court awarded the applicant $9,203.49 in total costs.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim against the respondent for negligent vehicle maintenance.

The appellant alleged the respondent failed to properly tighten a drain plug during a fluid change, causing his vehicle to break down 11 months later.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant failed to prove causation on a balance of probabilities.

The court also found no error in the admission of a downloaded maintenance manual into evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a trial decision finding it suffered no damages after its loader was damaged by the defendant.

The trial judge had characterized the appellant's payments for the damaged machine as lease costs rather than contributions toward a purchase under a conditional sales contract.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the appellant was forced to incur the expense of renting an alternative loader while waiting for the insurance company to write off the original machine, and awarded damages for the rental costs.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion for summary judgment against the respondent bank.

The dispute involved funds in a bank account originally owned by the appellant's mother, which the bank had transferred to the appellant's brother.

A Kuwaiti court had ruled that the funds belonged to the appellant.

The Divisional Court found that the Kuwaiti judgment was final and that the bank was a privy to the brother, meaning it would be bound by the foreign judgment through issue estoppel.

However, the appeal was dismissed because the appellant's pleadings had not been amended to properly base the claim on the foreign judgment.

The respondents, the City of Toronto and the Toronto Transit Commission, brought a motion for the recusal of Justice Matlow and to strike the panel that had previously granted an application for judicial review.

The moving parties argued that Justice Matlow's prior involvement in contentious issues with the City created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Justices Greer and E. Macdonald, the other members of the panel, were unaware of the extent of Justice Matlow's involvement prior to the motion.

They concluded that an objective third party would find a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Consequently, they decided to stand down, strike the panel, and declare their previous decision null and void to ensure the matter did not proceed in breach of natural justice.

The appellant, a corporate director, appealed a decision finding him personally liable under s. 248 of the OBCA for a corporate debt owed to the respondent for fresh produce.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that while the appellant was a director, there was no evidence he exercised his powers in an oppressive or unfairly prejudicial manner.

A related appeal from a decision refusing to set aside the original order on the basis of mistake was dismissed.