Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The defendants, lawyers and a law firm, sought leave to appeal a motion judge's refusal to strike paragraphs in a Statement of Claim.

The plaintiffs, victims of a Ponzi scheme, sued the defendants for negligence based on statements made during an Ontario Securities Commission investigation.

The defendants argued the statements were protected by absolute privilege.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision to leave the issue of absolute privilege to the trial judge, and that the application of absolute privilege is a matter of significant importance.

The appellant sought to appeal a decision of a Superior Court judge who had dismissed his appeals from two Small Claims Court decisions.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court agreed it lacked jurisdiction, noting that the Superior Court judge was hearing appeals, not a motion.

Consequently, the proper route of appeal was to the Court of Appeal with leave under section 6(1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appeal was dismissed without a determination on the merits.

The applicant, an elite wheelchair athlete, sought judicial review of an arbitral decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport regarding an anti-doping violation.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, holding that the arbitrator derived authority from a private contract rather than a statutory power, meaning the court lacked jurisdiction under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court also found the application to be an abuse of process due to a parallel civil action seeking the same relief.

The appellants, having been successful in their appeal which struck the respondent's counterclaim and third-party claim, sought their costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court fixed the costs for both appellants but declined to include any fees or disbursements related to a voluntary mediation.

The court held that voluntary mediation is not a step authorized by the Rules of Civil Procedure, and as a matter of policy, the costs of voluntary mediation should be borne equally by the parties to encourage settlement efforts without fear of increased costs if unsuccessful.

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a partially successful application for judicial review regarding the municipal reimbursement of legal expenses for city councillors.

The Divisional Court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $15,000 payable by the city, noting the lack of complexity and partial success.

The court declined to award costs against the individual councillors, and ordered the applicant to pay $5,000 in costs to one councillor who successfully opposed the relief sought against him personally.

Following an appeal where the appellants failed to file written submissions on costs, the Divisional Court awarded costs to the successful respondents.

The court awarded $30,000 to Woods Parisien, $20,000 to the Ville de Hawkesbury, and $20,000 to Menzies, payable by the appellants within 30 days.

The applicant association sought interim declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the respondent regulatory college from enacting a proposed by-law for a compulsory insurance program.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, holding that administrative proceedings should not be fragmented and the matter should run its course before the college prior to any judicial review.

No costs were awarded due to the college's procedural missteps.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their Small Claims Court action against a hospital.

The appellants had sued the hospital for failing to provide a reasonable explanation for the death of their family member, claiming emotional harm.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, finding the action was an abuse of process because the claims could have been raised in a prior, time-barred Superior Court action.

The Court also held the action was statute-barred, rejecting the argument that the hospital's ongoing failure to provide information constituted a continuing contravention that extended the limitation period.

The moving parties brought a motion to vary or set aside a decision of Swinton J., which had dismissed their motion to extend the time to perfect an appeal.

Swinton J. had dismissed the motion on the basis of res judicata, as Jennings J. had previously dismissed a motion seeking the same relief.

The Divisional Court agreed with Swinton J. that she was bound by the decision of Jennings J., and that the proper recourse was to appeal or move to vary the decision of Jennings J., rather than bringing another motion before a different judge.

The motion was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The Working Facilities Coalition and Laura Miller, on behalf of the Ontario Liberal Party, brought a motion to intervene in the application between the PC Ontario Fund and the Chief Electoral Officer.

The court granted the intervention and issued an order based on a revised draft.

The court denied a request for cross-examination on an affidavit filed in support of the motion to intervene, applied the usual costs provisions for interveners, and refused to limit the intervening party's appeal rights.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their action for failing to comply with a consent order to post $200,000 in security for costs.

The appellants sought an adjournment of the appeal, alleging the respondents' counsel was in a conflict of interest.

The court denied the adjournment, noting the delay and the discrete legal issue on appeal.

On the merits, the court upheld the Master's finding that under Form 56A of the Rules of Civil Procedure, an order for security for costs requires payment in cash unless the order specifies another form of security.

The appellants' attempt to file a late, foreign letter of credit covering only one plaintiff was insufficient.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding it $536.55 plus costs in a dispute over returned fabric.

The appellant alleged the trial judge made seven errors, including failing to address fraudulent misrepresentation, miscalculating the amount of fabric returned, and denying interpreter fees.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact, noting the trial judge was in the best position to assess credibility and the evidence.

The appellants appealed an order granting the respondent interim costs of $35,000 in an oppression remedy action under the Business Corporations Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that s. 249(4) of the Act does not grant jurisdiction to order an individual to pay interim costs.

The court also found that the motion judge erred in concluding that the corporate appellants were affiliated with the target corporation, as the evidence did not support a finding of control other than by way of security.

The order for interim costs was set aside.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motions under Rules 20 and 21 to strike the respondent's claims for constructive dismissal and related torts as statute-barred.

The motion judge had found that the claims could have been discovered before the respondent resigned, potentially triggering the six-year limitation period under the transitional provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that a cause of action for constructive dismissal arises only when the employee resigns.

As the resignation occurred in May 2004, the two-year limitation period applied and the claims were statute-barred.

The court also held that the motion judge erred in linking the Rule 20 and Rule 21 motions, and found no triable issue regarding promissory estoppel or acknowledgment of liability.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to amend their statement of claim to add a conspiracy claim.

The motion to amend was served before the expiry of the limitation period but was not heard until after it had expired due to inordinate delay.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the parties' rights crystallized on the date the motion was served.

Since the motion was served within the limitation period and the proposed amended pleading was sufficient in law, the amendment was permitted despite the delay.

The appellants, a law firm and lawyer, appealed the dismissal of their motion to strike a defamation claim.

The respondent had sued the appellants for defamation based on a letter and draft statement of claim sent to a town planner the day before the claim was officially issued.

The motion judge held that absolute privilege did not apply because the communication contained gratuitously defamatory material intended to induce false testimony.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that absolute privilege applies to communications made preparatory to and with a view to judicial proceedings, regardless of malice or falsity.

The court found the communication was made on an occasion of absolute privilege and struck the statement of claim.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a Small Claims Court decision, both parties sought costs.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the appeal was frivolous and noting the appellant's scandalous allegations against the court.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale, fixing the amount at $3,500, taking into account the $7,200 claimed in the original action.

The court also reprimanded the self-represented appellant, who is a lawyer by training, for her disrespectful and unfounded attacks on the judiciary.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from a decision setting aside a Master's order requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs.

The court found that the lower court's brief decision was based on well-settled law and did not raise an issue of significance meriting the attention of the Divisional Court.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a trial decision granting judgment of $13,413.04 to the respondent, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence and provided inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of fact were reasonable, supported by the evidence, and entitled to deference absent a palpable and overriding error.

The court also held that the trial judge's reasons adequately explained his conclusions and provided a sufficient basis for appellate review.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that found them liable for a $15,653 breach of contract committed by the main defendant, Nicholas Bulut, and awarded substantial indemnity costs against all defendants without hearing submissions.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding no legal basis in contract, corporate veil piercing, or unjust enrichment to hold the other defendants liable for Nicholas Bulut's breach.

The Court also set aside the trial judge's costs award due to a breach of procedural fairness and natural justice, as the trial judge refused to hear submissions.

The Court substituted its own costs order, awarding the appellants partial indemnity costs from the date of their Rule 49 offer to settle.