Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The appellants appealed a trial judgment resolving a deadlock in a family-owned ice cream business.

The trial judge ordered the majority shareholder to sell her shares to the minority shareholder for fair market value.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge ignored the majority shareholder's reasonable expectations, her security interest in the business, and the minority shareholder's alleged misappropriation of a corporate opportunity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of the law, including the conclusion that the appellants were more responsible for the deadlock.

Following a hard-fought application for judicial review, the successful respondent sought costs of $57,647.20.

The applicant argued for a range of $12,000 to $14,000.

The Divisional Court found the respondent's claimed amount excessive for a one-day application, but the applicant's suggested amount too low.

The court fixed costs at $25,000 payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The successful plaintiff sought costs of the appeal in the amount of $5,428.74.

The defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's entitlement to costs but argued they should be fixed at $3,500.

The Divisional Court found the plaintiff's claim substantially justified and awarded costs fixed at $5,400 all-inclusive.

Following the dismissal of an application that was found to be without merit, the applicant and the respondent union both sought costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's claim for costs, noting the usual rule that costs follow the event.

The respondent union was awarded costs fixed at $12,000, payable by the applicant.

The defendants sought leave to appeal the dismissal of their summary judgment motion.

The underlying action involved a claim for $1.4 million for breach of a television series production and distribution agreement.

The summary judgment motion had been dismissed because the motions judge found that the discoverability of the claim required multiple findings of fact on conflicting evidence, which could only be achieved at trial.

The Divisional Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's application of the full appreciation test and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The appellant appealed a Master's order striking his Statement of Defence for failing to fully comply with undertakings and prior court orders.

The Divisional Court applied the standard of review from Housen v. Nikolaisen, finding that the Master's decision was supported by the evidence and involved no error of law or principle.

The appellant had been given multiple warnings and opportunities to comply but failed to do so.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to review an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court that required them to pay $20,000 as security for costs.

The motion was brought well past the four-day time limit prescribed by Rule 61.16(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court declined to extend the time for the motion, noting the plaintiffs' repeated failure to meet deadlines, the lack of evidence explaining the delay, and the prejudice to the defendant.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a Master's order dismissing his defamation action for delay at a status hearing.

The appellant argued the delay was justified because he was waiting for criminal charges of sexual assault to be resolved, but the Master found the criminal charges related to a different incident than the one pleaded in the defamation action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master correctly applied the law, properly rejected the appellant's excuse for delay, and reasonably found actual prejudice to the respondents.

The Ontario Energy Board brought a motion to quash two summonses issued by the appellant to a Board member and the Board's external counsel.

The appellant sought to examine them in aid of a motion to adduce fresh evidence on appeal, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias because the external counsel's firm had represented the appellant's competitors and was a member of an industry association.

The Divisional Court quashed both summonses, finding that the proposed lines of inquiry were irrelevant to the objective test for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court also analyzed testimonial immunity under s. 10 of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, deliberative secrecy, and solicitor-client privilege, finding multiple additional grounds to quash the Board member's summons and partial grounds to quash the external counsel's summons.

The defendant landlord sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that dismissed its motion for security for costs, particulars, and a further and better Affidavit of Documents.

The motions judge had found the corporate plaintiff and its principal to be genuinely impecunious, making an order for security for costs unjust.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's application of the Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly regarding proportionality and the court's discretion to dispense with strict compliance.

Following a successful appeal by the municipality and elected candidates that upheld the validity of a municipal election, the court determined the costs of the proceedings.

The court held that the unsuccessful challenging candidates were not entitled to have their costs paid by the municipality, despite claiming public interest litigant status.

However, the court ordered the municipality to pay the partial indemnity costs of the successful elected candidates, recognizing they were blameless parties drawn into expensive litigation due to mistakes made by municipal election officials.

The court also ordered one of the challenging candidates to pay the costs of a motion he unreasonably opposed.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the respondent law firm sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis of over $29,000.

The appellant, who was self-represented, sought costs of $3,000 to $4,000 despite being unsuccessful.

The Divisional Court awarded costs to the respondent but significantly reduced the quantum to $2,000.

The court noted that the respondent's counsel invested excessive time, sought an unjustifiably high rate, and had previously been criticized by other judges for unprofessional conduct and impaired judgment in acting for his own firm.

The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing his claim for $25,000 on a promissory note and awarding the respondent $10,030 on a counterclaim for construction defects.

The trial judge found the promissory note lacked consideration and was obtained by misrepresentation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or assessment of damages.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order appointing an investigative receiver over it.

The moving party argued the motion judge erred by not first finding evidence of fraud or dissipation of assets.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the motion judge applied the correct test under s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act and that the appointment was just and convenient given the interconnectedness of the moving party with bankrupt companies and the flow of funds between them.

The test for leave to appeal was not met.

The defendants appealed an order dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment.

The Master had found that the defendants failed to provide a plausible explanation for the default and did not have an arguable defence on the merits.

The defendants argued the Master erred in interpreting an option agreement as not being a demand obligation, which affected when the limitation period commenced.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's decision, agreeing that the cause of action did not arise until 45 days after the option was exercised, meaning the action was commenced within the limitation period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order continuing a Mareva injunction on the condition that it post $50,000 as security for costs.

The plaintiff argued that the judge erred by using section 101 of the Courts of Justice Act to order security for costs instead of the specific regime under Rule 56.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the judge had jurisdiction to impose the term under section 101 to do justice between the parties, especially given the plaintiff was an insolvent foreign resident whose undertaking as to damages was worthless.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an order denying a temporary stay of their class proceeding and requiring them to deliver a certification record by a specified date or face a permanent stay.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the case management judge's order.

The court noted that commencing class proceedings merely to toll the limitation period without the resources or willingness to proceed in Ontario constitutes an abuse of process.

The plaintiff brought motions for leave to appeal two orders of a motion judge: one adding a competing car dealership as a party defendant, and another dissolving an interim interlocutory injunction that had restrained the defendant manufacturer from appointing an additional dealer in the plaintiff's market area.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decisions and no issues of general importance to the administration of justice.

The moving party, a community group, abandoned its motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board regarding an Official Plan Amendment.

The moving party brought a motion to be relieved from the costs consequences of abandoning the appeal under Rule 37.09, arguing it was a public interest litigant.

The Divisional Court applied the five-step test for public interest costs immunity and found that while the group may have had genuine motives, the underlying litigation was ill-advised, unreasonable, and adversely impacted the private respondents who were forced to participate.

The motion for relief from costs was dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to remove and replace the administrator of a condominium corporation.

The applicant argued the motion judge erred in principle in applying the test for replacing an administrator under the Condominium Act.

The Divisional Court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, noting she had properly assessed the evidence and applied the correct test.

The court also found the matter did not transcend the interests of the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.