Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his personal injury action following a motor vehicle accident.

The trial judge found the plaintiff suffered a permanent serious impairment but dismissed the action because the plaintiff failed to provide independent evidence corroborating his change in function under s. 4.3(5) of O. Reg. 461/96.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that s. 4.3(5) does not preclude a plaintiff from providing the corroborating evidence.

The court found that interpreting the provision to require independent corroboration would disproportionately impact vulnerable groups and be inconsistent with Charter equality values.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

At trial, the judge excluded opinion evidence from several of the appellant's treating professionals and medical assessors because they had not complied with the expert report requirements of Rule 53.03.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's rulings, confirming that the application of Rule 53.03 depends on the nature of the evidence (opinion vs. factual) rather than the role of the witness (treating professional vs. litigation expert).

The court held that any witness seeking to provide expert opinion evidence must comply with Rule 53.03.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their action regarding a defective well in a real estate transaction.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge made two palpable and overriding errors.

First, the trial judge misinterpreted testimony regarding when modifications were made to the Seller Property Information Statement.

Second, the trial judge failed to consider and evaluate the evidence of several witnesses, including an expert hydrogeologist, who testified that the well was defective prior to the sale.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent paralegal firm $772.06 on a quantum meruit basis after finding their contingency fee agreement illegal.

The appellant argued the Deputy Judge erred by allowing a late amendment to plead quantum meruit and by applying an incorrect hourly rate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's conclusions that the amendment caused no prejudice and that the appellant had accepted the bulk of the charges at trial.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board Chair, which dismissed their request for review of an earlier OMB decision regarding draft plan conditions for a subdivision.

The applicants argued the Chair erred in applying the public interest test to deny an extension of time, applied the wrong legal test to strike Charter arguments, failed to recognize Charter rights related to home ownership, and ignored new evidence about inconsistent slope setbacks.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness or reasonableness of the Chair's decision on any of the grounds raised.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to compel the representative plaintiff to answer discovery questions regarding class members' tax and income information.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that the questions were speculative, disproportionate, and premature given that the methodology for calculating damages had not yet been determined.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering her to repay $9,534.91 to the respondent, disputing $4,501.22 of that amount.

The appellant argued the trial judge committed palpable and overriding errors in finding that three specific payments were loans and failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence, including bank records and receipts, and that the reasons provided were sufficient to explain why the respondent's evidence was preferred.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering them to pay damages for breach of a contract for GPS tracking systems.

The central issue was whether the trial judge erred in rectifying the contract's cancellation provision to require a fee of $399 'per unit' rather than a flat fee of $399 for all 31 units.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly identified an ambiguity and properly applied the remedy of rectification based on the mutual mistake and common intention of the parties to amortize the hardware costs over the life of the contract.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent contractor $9,705.15 for pre-construction services.

The appellants argued they never agreed to pay for the services unless a construction contract was signed, and that the trial judge misapplied the doctrine of quantum meruit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and concluding that the trial judge correctly applied the test for quantum meruit, as the appellants were enriched by the respondent's services without a juristic reason.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a $1,000 costs order made by a Deputy Judge after her two Small Claims Court actions were consolidated and dismissed for exceeding the monetary jurisdiction due to claim splitting.

The appellant argued she was not given an opportunity to make submissions on costs.

The Divisional Court found that the appellant had made submissions regarding her inability to pay, and that the Deputy Judge made no error in principle.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant client appealed an order varying an Assessment Officer's report.

The motion judge found that the Assessment Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by determining that the appellant was not a client of the respondent solicitor, which constituted a dispute over the retainer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the Assessment Officer improperly determined a retainer issue.

The court also upheld the motion judge's order imposing joint and several liability, noting the parties had previously consented to proceed by assessment on that basis.

The plaintiff's action was struck from the trial list and subsequently dismissed by a Master due to the inaction of her former counsel.

The plaintiff's second lawyer failed to advise her of the dismissal or her right to appeal.

Upon retaining new counsel, the plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time to file a Notice of Appeal of the Master's order.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the delay was attributable to the plaintiff's former counsel and that extending the time would not prejudice the defendants, in accordance with the principle that matters should be determined on their merits.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment, arguing the trial judge exceeded the court's $25,000 monetary jurisdiction by finding the appellant owed the respondents $42,633.57 before setting off $21,094.72 owed to the appellant, resulting in a net judgment of $21,538.85.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that monetary limits restrict the amount recoverable by the final judgment, not the reasoning process or intermediate calculations used to arrive at that amount.

The net judgment was within the court's jurisdiction.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to extend the time for serving a Notice of Appeal and Certificate Respecting Evidence following a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his property damage claim.

The delay in service was primarily caused by the court sending an unsigned, undated copy of the decision, followed by a delayed signed copy.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff formed the intent to appeal in time, the 14-day delay was largely the court's fault, there was no prejudice to the defendant, and the justice of the case favoured granting relief.

No costs were awarded.

The respondent Moose Cree First Nation brought a motion to strike portions of a judicial review application and supporting affidavit filed by the MoCreebec Council of the Cree Nation regarding a hydroelectric project.

The parties resolved several issues, including the removal of Charter and Aboriginal rights claims.

The court deferred a decision on striking hearsay evidence in the affidavit pending further information.

Given the complexity and public policy implications, the court referred the remaining issue of the applicant's capacity to bring the application to a full panel of the Divisional Court.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for leave and judicial review of a Law Society Hearing Panel decision, the court determined costs.

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $7,669.40.

The applicant argued for no costs, claiming the issue was novel and blaming the respondent for not agreeing to an adjournment.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments, noting he chose the venue and his own costs outline exceeded the respondent's claim.

The court awarded the successful respondent costs fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of FSCO, which found she was not involved in an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant was injured while driving a pocket bike on the property of the bike's owner.

The Divisional Court upheld the Delegate's decision, finding that under the Off-Road Vehicles Act, the pocket bike was not required to be insured while operated on the owner's property.

Consequently, it did not qualify as an 'automobile' at the time of the collision, and the application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant sought costs of $107,070 plus disbursements after successfully appealing a decision under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.

The respondent argued for no costs on the basis that he was a public interest litigant.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs to either party, noting that success on the appeal was divided, the proceeding raised novel legal issues of public importance regarding municipal codes of conduct, and it was reasonable for the respondent to have pursued the application initially.

Following an appeal with mixed success, the court issued a brief endorsement ordering that no costs be awarded to either party.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision that ordered them to repay a $21,885.40 commercial debt to the respondent but refused to allow their counterclaim for equitable set-off of $20,886.37 in unpaid legal fees.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law.

The court held that the two transactions were sufficiently close in time and context between the same parties to warrant equitable set-off, making it manifestly unjust to allow the respondent to enforce repayment without accounting for the cross-claim.