Civil Litigation - Defendant cases from the Divisional Court
Leave to appeal granted and Mareva injunction restored pending final disposition of the appeal.
The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order that dissolved a previously granted Mareva injunction.
The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, stayed the impugned order, and restored the Mareva injunction pending the final disposition of the appeal.
The court also ordered an expedited schedule for the exchange of appeal materials and awarded costs of the motion to the moving parties.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed without costs.
The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Papageorgiou J. dated January 15, 2025.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.
Motion to extend time to appeal costs order dismissed due to unexplained 16-month delay and lack of merit.
The moving parties, a condominium owner and its principal, sought an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal a costs order of $18,758.00.
The underlying motion regarding the use of the condominium unit was dismissed.
The moving parties failed to file their motion for leave to appeal within the required 15 days and delayed 16 months before seeking an extension, only acting when the respondent attempted to enforce a writ of seizure and sale.
The court dismissed the motion, finding no adequate explanation for the delay, prejudice to the respondent who incurred enforcement costs, and no merit to the proposed costs appeal.
Costs denied against administrative tribunal that erroneously dismissed application but did not act in an adversarial role.
The applicant sought costs against the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario after successfully bringing an application for judicial review.
The Tribunal had erroneously dismissed her human rights application for failing to comply with case assessment directions, despite her having filed the required documents.
The Tribunal consented to the judicial review but opposed the request for costs.
The Divisional Court dismissed the request for costs, finding that the Tribunal's error was made in the course of its administrative functions and that it did not assume an adversarial role in the proceedings.
No costs were awarded.
Motion for leave to appeal denied with no costs.
The self-represented moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 3, 2022.
The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal with no costs.
Appeal allowed permitting defendant to amend statement of defence in defamation action.
The appellant, a defendant in a defamation action, appealed a motions judge's decision refusing her leave to amend her statement of defence.
The motions judge had found the proposed amendments were properly pleaded and caused no prejudice, but concluded the motion itself was an abuse of process because the appellant had previously sought broad disclosure without particularizing her defence.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that Rule 26 is broadly permissive and the motion to amend was not an abuse of process, as the amendments were integral to the defence and caused no prejudice.
The court permitted the amendments but upheld the motions judge's adverse costs award against the appellant for her prior litigation conduct.
Appellant ordered to pay $7,650.00 in costs to the respondent following an appeal.
The court issued an endorsement regarding costs following an appeal.
Noting the history of the appeal and finding the respondent's bill of costs to be reasonable, the court ordered the appellant to pay costs of $7,650.00, inclusive of all disbursements, to the respondent's counsel within thirty days.
Motion to strike late notice of appeal dismissed; time to appeal extended due to lack of prejudice.
The Law Society moved to strike a portion of the appellant's notice of appeal on the basis that it was filed outside the 30-day time limit prescribed by Rule 61.04.
The appellant had appealed a decision on the merits and a subsequent costs decision, believing the time to appeal the merits ran from the date of the costs decision.
The court found the appeal of the merits decision was out of time, but exercised its discretion under Rule 3.02 to extend the time for filing, noting the lack of prejudice to the Law Society and the inextricable link between the merits and costs decisions.
Appeal quashed for lack of jurisdiction as it should have been brought to the Court of Appeal.
The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his application for declaratory and injunctive relief regarding property tax arrears.
The respondent City of Toronto brought a cross-motion to quash the appeal, arguing it was brought in the wrong court.
The Divisional Court agreed, finding that under the Courts of Justice Act, an appeal from a final order of a Superior Court judge seeking such relief lies to the Court of Appeal.
The appeal was quashed and costs were awarded to the respondent.
Appeals from Small Claims Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the amount in dispute was under $2,500.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court order dismissing her motion for a new trial and brought a separate application challenging the same proceedings.
The respondent moved to quash the appeals, dismiss the application, and obtain an order prohibiting the appellant from bringing further proceedings without leave.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 31 of the Courts of Justice Act because the amount in dispute was less than the $2,500 prescribed limit.
The application was also dismissed as an abuse of process constituting a collateral attack on the Small Claims Court order.
The court declined to make a vexatious litigant order, noting such relief must be sought by way of an originating application rather than a motion, but directed that garnished funds held in court be paid out to the respondent.
Appeal dismissed; trial judge made no palpable error in finding contractor did not require a licence.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent contractor the balance owing for home renovations.
The appellant argued the contract was illegal and unenforceable because the respondent did not hold a building renovator's licence under the Toronto Municipal Code.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the appellant failed to prove the nature of the work required a licence.
Motions to strike environmental judicial review and for protective costs order dismissed; improper affidavit evidence struck.
The applicants sought judicial review of a Ministry of the Environment decision approving an increase in sulphur production at a Suncor refinery, arguing the failure to conduct a cumulative effects assessment violated their Charter rights.
The respondents brought motions to strike the application as a collateral attack on prior approvals and to strike much of the applicants' affidavit evidence.
The applicants brought a cross-motion for a protective costs order.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to strike the application, finding it was not plain and obvious it would fail.
The court allowed the motion to strike evidence in part, striking improper expert opinion and unattributed hearsay, but leaving relevance determinations to the hearing panel.
The motion for a protective costs order was dismissed, as the applicants had pro bono representation and the narrow administrative issue did not meet the exceptional public importance threshold.
Costs of $5,577.50 awarded to moving party after successful motion for security for costs.
The moving party sought costs following a motion to quash an appeal or, in the alternative, for security for costs.
Although the motion to quash was dismissed, the moving party was successful in obtaining an order for security for costs.
The court found that success was not divided, as most of the preparation time was relevant to both issues.
The responding party, who was self-represented, was ordered to pay partial indemnity costs of $5,577.50, to be paid from her share of the proceeds from the sale of a jointly owned property.
Small Claims Court orders dismissing actions set aside for breach of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction.
The appellant appealed two orders from the Small Claims Court that dismissed his actions against the respondents and prohibited him from commencing further proceedings.
The orders were made by the Small Claims Court judge on her own initiative, without a motion, notice, or an opportunity for the appellant to be heard.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Small Claims Court judge acted without jurisdiction and in breach of procedural fairness and natural justice.
The orders were set aside and costs were awarded to the appellant.
Solicitor's appeal of a decision confirming a costs assessment dismissed.
The appellant solicitor appealed the decision of Forestell J., which confirmed the assessment of an Assessment Officer following a four-day hearing.
The Divisional Court found that the motion judge was correct in concluding that the Assessment Officer's findings were reasonable and entitled to deference.
The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $3,500.
Successful appellant awarded $10,361.24 in costs for security for costs motion and subsequent appeals.
The defendant/appellant, The Economical Insurance Group, sought costs totalling $38,285.86 following its successful appeal regarding a motion for security for costs.
The plaintiffs argued that costs should be in the cause or not payable forthwith.
The Divisional Court found the requested amount excessive and awarded the defendant $5,000 plus disbursements for the motion to the master and the appeal to the motions judge, payable in 60 days.
The court also awarded $5,000 inclusive of disbursements for the motion for leave and the appeal to the Divisional Court, payable in any event of the cause, recognizing the state of the relevant jurisprudence.
Appeal allowed in part; mental distress damages set aside but vendor entitled to forfeit $5,000 deposit.
The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent damages for mental distress and legal costs following the appellants' breach of a real estate purchase agreement.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that damages for mental distress were not pleaded and are generally unavailable for breach of a real estate contract.
The court also set aside the award for legal costs incurred in contemplation of litigation.
However, the court held that the respondent was entitled to forfeiture of the $5,000 deposit paid by the appellants, even though actual damages were less than the deposit amount.
Appeal of Master's order dismissed as the record showed the appellant had full notice.
The appellant appealed an order of Master MacLeod, arguing procedural unfairness because the order was allegedly made without formal notice or supporting materials, precluding an explanation for its defaults.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the record disclosed full notice to the appellant and there was no palpable and overriding error or erroneous exercise of discretion by the Master.
Mortgagor's appeal quashed for failing to obtain leave to appeal an interlocutory order.
The mortgagees brought a motion to quash the mortgagor's appeal of an order fixing the amount required to redeem the mortgage.
The Divisional Court held that the underlying order was interlocutory, as it determined a procedural question rather than the substantive merits of the action.
Because the mortgagor had not obtained leave to appeal the interlocutory order as required by section 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, the appeal was quashed.
The court granted the mortgagor a brief extension to move for leave to appeal.
Nervous shock claims by family members witnessing a fatal accident are barred by the Insurance Act.
The plaintiffs, the parents and brother of a two-year-old boy who was killed in a motor vehicle accident, brought an action for damages for nervous shock after witnessing his death.
The defendants appealed a ruling that the claim for nervous shock was not barred by s. 266(1) of the Insurance Act.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that 'bodily injury' includes psychological injury and that the exception to immunity 'where the injured person has died' applies only to the person who actually died, not to third parties claiming independent nervous shock injuries.
Page 158
