Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The plaintiffs, family members of a young man shot and killed by police, brought an action against the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) alleging negligent investigation.

The defendants moved to strike the claim under Rule 21, arguing the SIU owed no private law duty of care to the family.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding it was not plain and obvious the claim would fail.

The Divisional Court dismissed the defendants' appeal, holding that the existence of a duty of care in these circumstances is a novel question of law that should be determined on a full evidentiary record at trial, applying the Anns/Cooper test.

The appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent former employee $7,000 in general damages for mental distress and $1,500 in costs following her termination.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law by awarding damages for mental distress without evidence of bad faith or unfair conduct in the manner of dismissal, contrary to Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence.

The court also set aside the costs award, holding that the trial judge exceeded the mandatory statutory limits under the Courts of Justice Act and the Small Claims Court Rules.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an order bifurcating common issues relating to the quantification and apportionment of any accounting or disgorgement for a claim based on waiver of tort from the other common issues in a class action concerning allegedly defective cardiac defibrillators.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding conflicting decisions on the issue of bifurcation and good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, noting the matter is of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.

The appellant, a spiritualist, appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $5,411.00 for breach of contract.

The respondent had paid the appellant for services to reunite her with her ex-boyfriend, but the appellant provided no services.

The Deputy Judge found the respondent credible and ruled in her favour.

On appeal, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's credibility findings or conclusions, and awarded costs to the respondent.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal a certification decision that refused to certify class members' entitlement to punitive damages as a common issue and bifurcated common issues relating to the quantification and apportionment of waiver of tort damages.

The Divisional Court found that there were conflicting decisions on both issues and good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

Leave to appeal was granted on both issues and the hearing of the appeal was expedited.

The appellant tenant brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's Dismissal Order that dismissed his appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board decision for failure to perfect the appeal on time.

The tenant explained the delay was due to financial inability to pay for transcripts and unfamiliarity with procedural requirements.

The court applied a contextual approach, finding the tenant moved promptly to set aside the order and the landlord would suffer no significant prejudice.

The motion was granted, the dismissal order was set aside, and the tenant was granted a short extension to perfect the appeal.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class action and an order refusing to strike the claim against the defendant law firm.

The underlying action involved a charitable gift program that was disallowed by the Canada Revenue Agency, leading to claims of breach of contract and negligence against the promoters and the law firm that provided tax opinions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusions that the common issues requirement was met and that the pleadings disclosed a tenable cause of action in negligence against the law firm.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a $345,733 costs award made following a partial summary judgment motion in a wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for leave to appeal the scale of costs.

The court granted the defendant's motion, finding that the magnitude of the costs award and the motion judge's lack of particulars in her reasons provided good reason to doubt the correctness of the order and raised issues of public importance regarding access to justice.

The plaintiff's cross-motion was dismissed as it did not raise matters of continued importance.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to compel the responding parties to deliver a further and better Affidavit of Documents.

The motion judge had found no need for the order because the moving parties' lawyers already had access to the documents through a related proceeding involving the same responding parties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the motion judge's decision was a practical solution to a unique factual matrix and did not raise matters of general or public importance.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to compel the defendant to deliver a further and better Affidavit of Documents.

The plaintiff argued the order conflicted with case law and misapprehended the nature of Anton Piller orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the motion judge's decision was discretionary, turned on the specific facts of the case, and did not involve matters of general public importance.

The court noted the plaintiff already had access to the documents in question and was arguably in a better position to list them.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision ordering the disclosure of a police officer's personnel file in a civil suit for wrongful detention and assault.

The court granted leave to appeal pursuant to Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding a conflict between the decision below and another case regarding the interpretation of sections 69 and 80 of the Police Services Act.

The court concluded it was desirable to clarify whether a police officer's personnel file should be disclosed in the context of a civil lawsuit.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order requiring a defendant to disclose the material information contained in a statement he gave to his insurer following a motor vehicle accident.

The statement itself was protected by litigation privilege.

The motion judge found that the order compelling disclosure conflicted with other Ontario decisions regarding whether the contents of a privileged statement must be disclosed on discovery.

Leave to appeal was granted as it was desirable for the Divisional Court to clarify when the contents of such statements are subject to disclosure.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision refusing to set aside a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) in favour of the plaintiff.

The motion judge had found it arguable that the plaintiff, a limited partner, had a reasonable claim to an interest in the property through a constructive trust.

The Divisional Court found that while there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, the proposed appeal did not involve matters of such importance to warrant granting leave, as the motion judge had merely found the legal propositions to be arguable rather than making new law.

Leave to appeal was refused.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her motion to amend a judgment that approved an infant settlement, and sought leave to extend the time to appeal the original judgment.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeals, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act because the orders appealed from did not require payment of any amount by the appellant, and no leave to appeal had been granted.

The respondents moved for security for costs of an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision, arguing the appeal was frivolous and the corporate appellant lacked assets in Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the appeal was not devoid of merit given previous findings regarding the respondent's credibility.

Furthermore, the respondents failed to provide a breakdown of projected costs or evidence that the appellant lacked assets of any kind to cover costs.

The respondents moved ex parte to dismiss the appeal after the appellant failed to comply with a peremptory order to perfect the appeal by a specified date.

The court noted that the appellant had not picked up or paid for the completed transcript.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding them liable in negligence for failing to adequately warn the respondent about a potential basement leak during a home inspection.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by establishing a standard of care without expert evidence and failing to consider contributory negligence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants' own testimony established the standard of care and that contributory negligence was not pleaded at trial.

The trial judge's finding of liability was not a palpable and overriding error.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a costs order of $32,307.14 made following a three-day trial under the Simplified Rules where both the claim and counterclaim were dismissed.

The plaintiff argued the costs were disproportionate and inconsistent with similar cases.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the trial judge's order and noting that the trial judge was alive to the issue of proportionality.

The moving party, a tenant with an unregistered 10-year lease, sought a stay of a judgment declaring his lease unenforceable against the responding party bank, which held a registered mortgage on the property.

The bank had moved for a writ of possession following the mortgagor's default.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm if the tenant were evicted, and a balance of convenience that favoured granting the stay on strict terms.

The stay was granted on the condition that the tenant pay a lump sum for arrears and ongoing monthly payments pending the appeal.

The defendants appealed a costs award in a motor vehicle action where the jury awarded the plaintiff $20,000.

The trial judge found that the defendants' offer to settle was unenforceable and that section 267.5(9) of the Insurance Act required the statutory deductible to be ignored when considering the cost consequences of an offer to settle under Rule 49.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal because the offer was indeed unenforceable, but clarified that section 267.5(9) does not apply to Rule 49 offers to settle, as doing so would undermine the purpose of the offer to settle rule.