Civil Litigation - Defendant cases from the Divisional Court
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.
The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 inclusive to the responding party.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs awarded to the responding parties.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the total amount of $8,522.
Appeal from LAT dismissed; court lacks jurisdiction over interlocutory decisions and found no errors of law.
The appellant appealed multiple decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) denying her Income Replacement Benefits and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident, as well as decisions denying an extension of time and a reconsideration.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the interlocutory extension and reconsideration decisions.
Regarding the merits, the court held that the LAT's procedural choice to proceed in writing was fair and that the appellant's substantive arguments raised questions of fact, not extricable errors of law.
Appeal allowed in part; law firm ledgers remain privileged, but privilege over non-law firm bank statements must be proven.
The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their motion to compel the production of law firm trust ledgers and unredacted bank statements from the respondents.
The underlying action involves allegations of a massive international civil fraud.
The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the law firm trust ledgers were presumptively privileged and that the appellants failed to rebut the presumption.
The Court also agreed that the 'future crimes and fraud' exception to solicitor-client privilege did not apply to civil fraud.
However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the motion judge erred in presuming privilege over redacted entries in non-law firm bank statements without requiring the respondents to prove the privilege claim.
The issue of the unredacted bank statements was remitted to the motion judge.
Small claims appeal dismissed; claim issued within limitation period and extension of service time upheld.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding an outstanding credit card debt.
He argued that the respondent improperly obtained an order extending the time for service and that the claim was statute-barred.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the claim was issued within the limitation period and that the order extending time for service was an unappealable interlocutory order.
The court also noted the appellant's failure to attend the peremptory hearing and awarded costs of $10,000 to the respondent.
Former trustee awarded $90,000 in full indemnity costs for successful appeal, apportioned between appellants and trust.
Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal regarding trustee compensation on a passing of accounts, the parties made written submissions on costs.
The respondent (former trustee) sought full indemnity costs of $134,394.86, while the appellants argued for partial indemnity costs payable by the trust and sought their own costs from the trust.
The Divisional Court held that the respondent was entitled to full indemnity costs because he incurred them in his capacity as trustee.
The court fixed the respondent's costs at $90,000 all-inclusive, ordering a blended costs award where the appellants pay 60 percent and the trust pays 40 percent.
The appellants were ordered to bear their own costs.
Leave to appeal denied; civil action properly stayed pending resolution of parallel criminal proceedings regarding wiretaps.
The self-represented plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an order staying their civil action pending the final disposition of related criminal proceedings against one of the plaintiffs.
The civil action alleged various torts and Charter breaches arising from wiretap authorizations that led to the criminal charges.
The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.
The court noted that the fundamental issue in the civil claim—the lawfulness of the wiretap authorization—was identical to a key issue in the criminal case, making the circumstances exceptional enough to warrant a stay.
Leave to appeal denied; joinder of sisters' historic sexual abuse claims against uncle upheld.
The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision that allowed an appeal from a master's severance order.
The plaintiffs, two sisters, alleged historic sexual abuse by their uncle.
The master had severed their claims, but the motion judge reversed this, finding the claims fit within a 'series of occurrences' under Rule 5.02(1)(a) and that joinder was appropriate.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and no issue of such importance to warrant granting leave.
Leave to appeal granted from an order removing counsel of record without notice or evidence.
The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an order removing their counsel of record.
The motion judge had removed the plaintiffs' counsel based on an unsworn, un-noticed motion by an individual defendant alleging a conflict of interest, and subsequently refused to consent to the release of the hearing transcript.
The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the order due to the lack of notice, evidence, and opportunity to be heard, and noting that the issues of right to counsel, natural justice, and access to court transcripts are of fundamental importance to the administration of justice.
Settlement of accident benefits claim rescinded because the offer exceeded the scope of pleadings.
The appellant appealed a motion judge's order enforcing a settlement of her claims for statutory accident benefits against her automobile insurer.
The appellant had accepted an offer to settle but later rescinded it, arguing the offer did not qualify as a Rule 49 offer and thus was subject to the rescission provisions of the Automobile Insurance Regulation.
The Divisional Court agreed, finding the offer required the appellant to release future claims not included in her statement of claim, meaning it was not a valid Rule 49 offer.
The appeal was allowed and the judgment enforcing the settlement was set aside.
Costs of appeal fixed at $3,500 on a partial indemnity scale based on proportionality.
Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal from a Small Claims Court decision, the successful respondent sought costs on a substantial or full indemnity scale.
The court determined that partial indemnity was the appropriate scale, as no special circumstances justified a higher scale.
Applying the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, the court rejected the respondent's claim for over $9,600 in costs, noting the amount in issue at trial was only $6,872.
Costs were fixed at $3,500 all-inclusive.
Costs of Small Claims Court appeal fixed at $2,500 based on principles of proportionality.
The respondent successfully defended an appeal of a Small Claims Court judgment and moved for costs of the appeal and the motion, seeking $12,500.
The court noted that the amount claimed was out of proportion to the $10,000 value of the Small Claims Court case.
Applying principles of proportionality and considering the limits on costs in Small Claims Court proceedings, the court fixed the costs of the appeal and the motion at $2,500.
Appeal dismissed; sexual assault claims do not exempt plaintiffs from compliance with rules against delay.
The appellant appealed a Master's order refusing to set aside the administrative dismissal of her action for damages for sexual assault.
The appellant argued that because her claim involved sexual assault and was not subject to a limitation period, the Master erred by not applying a more lenient test for setting aside the dismissal.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master correctly considered the nature of the claim as a contextual factor but properly concluded that the appellant's failure to move the action forward was unrelated to the nature of the assault, and that the respondents were entitled to expect compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Costs of $4,000 awarded to the successful respondent following written submissions.
The court issued an endorsement as to costs following an appeal.
Having reviewed the written submissions from both parties, the court fixed the costs payable to the successful respondent at $4,000.
Respondents prohibited from bringing further motions without leave due to endless frivolous and vexatious filings.
The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion for an order prohibiting the respondents from making further motions in the proceedings without leave of a judge, pursuant to Rule 37.16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The underlying matter involved an application for civil forfeiture under the Civil Remedies Act, to which the respondents responded with a counter-application seeking four billion dollars and alleging a massive conspiracy.
The court found that the respondents had initiated an endless string of unsuccessful, frivolous, and vexatious motions containing bizarre and scandalous allegations against judges and officials.
Applying the principles for vexatious proceedings, the court granted the motion and ordered costs of $1,500 payable to the Attorney General.
Small Claims Court appeal dismissed as trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors.
The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $7,500 for breach of contract.
The appellants argued the trial judge erred by denying an adjournment, admitting an undisclosed document and a privileged settlement offer, intervening excessively, and misunderstanding evidence due to ill health.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors and concluding that the trial judge's credibility findings and ultimate decision were supported by the evidence.
Small claims appeal allowed and new trial ordered due to insufficient evidence identifying the statutory basis of student loans.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to repay student loans to the respondent bank.
The central issue was whether the loans were ordinary bank loans subject to a two-year limitation period, or government student loans exempt from limitation periods under the Limitations Act, 2002.
The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in concluding the loans were made under the Canada Student Loans Act, as that statute had been replaced by the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act at the relevant time.
Given the insufficient evidentiary record regarding the exact nature of the loans, the court allowed the appeal in part and ordered a new trial.
Repair shop's failure to comply with Consumer Protection Act estimate requirements bars recovery for repairs.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay the respondent repair shop for motor vehicle repairs.
The appellant argued the respondent failed to provide a written estimate or properly record his authorization as required by the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that while the repair shop had authorization and performed the work, its failure to comply with the strict provisions of the Act precluded recovery.
The Act provided a juristic reason for the appellant's enrichment, barring the respondent's claim in quantum meruit.
Extension of time to file appeal documents granted due to ongoing settlement discussions and clear intention to appeal.
The appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to file appeal documents.
The appellant had previously been granted leave to appeal a costs decision but failed to file the notice of appeal with the court, despite serving it on the respondents.
The court found that the appellant always intended to appeal and that the delay was partly due to settlement discussions between the parties.
The motion for an extension of time was granted, with costs of $400 awarded against the appellant, to be deducted from a previous costs award.
Small Claims appeal allowed in part; plaintiff's claim was not an abuse of process.
The self-represented plaintiff appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claims against the City of Toronto and the Toronto Police Services Board.
The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal of claims based on direct liability and statute-barred parking tags.
However, the court allowed the appeal regarding abuse of process, finding that the plaintiff was not seeking to re-litigate or set aside a prior judicial finding.
The appeal was allowed in part, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
Page 160
