Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order certifying the plaintiff's action regarding allegedly defective organic asphalt shingles as a class proceeding.

The defendants argued that the claims for negligent design and negligent manufacture should have been pleaded separately, that there was no common defect, and that the claim for pure economic loss could not succeed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the certification order, and emphasizing the flexibility of the class proceedings process.

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 plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a costs order of $12,500 awarded to the defendants after the plaintiffs discontinued their action.

The plaintiffs argued that the parties had agreed to a discontinuance without costs and that the motion judge failed to address this agreement in his reasons.

The Divisional Court found that the evidence did not support the existence of such an agreement, as the defendants' offer was conditional on a similar agreement with another defendant, which was never reached.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

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 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 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 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 appellant appealed a trial judge's decision granting a non-suit motion and dismissing his slander action.

The Divisional Court raised the issue of its jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

Because the appellant failed to set out the amount of his claim in the statement of claim as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court could not determine if the claim fell within its $50,000 monetary jurisdiction.

Consequently, the court transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiffs appealed a trial judgment regarding a contract for the construction of a home that was destroyed by fire before completion.

The trial judge found the plaintiffs had terminated the contract and awarded the defendant $100,000 on its counterclaim for lost profits, while awarding the plaintiffs a small net judgment from insurance proceeds.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding that the plaintiffs terminated the contract but found the trial judge erred in calculating the insurance trust funds and the counterclaim damages.

The appeal was allowed in part, reducing the counterclaim to $20,000 and varying the net judgment in favour of the plaintiffs to $60,765.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal an order dismissing his requests to add a counterclaim, consolidate proceedings, and stay a Small Claims Court matter.

The court applied the factors from Rizzi v. Mavros and found that while the moving party had an intention to appeal and a reasonable explanation for the delay, the proposed appeal lacked merit.

Given the moving party's overly litigious conduct and the lack of merit, the justice of the case required dismissing the motion to bring closure to the proceedings.

The appellant, a judgment creditor of a corporation, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its oppression claim against the corporation's directors and shareholders.

The appellant argued the respondents acted oppressively by failing to set aside funds to satisfy its judgment while repaying shareholder loans and other creditors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motions judge's finding that the respondents did not strip assets from a profitable company, but rather funded it, and the appellant had no reasonable expectation that a reserve would be maintained for its contingent claim.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a motion judge's order that allowed the plaintiffs to add her as a defendant in her personal capacity after the presumptive expiry of the limitation period.

The motion judge had made a final determination that the claim was not discoverable until December 2010, effectively precluding a limitation defence at trial.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision to make a final fact-finding determination on discoverability during a gatekeeping motion, and concluding that the scope of a motion judge's power under Rule 5.04 is a matter of general importance.

The appellants appealed a trial decision finding them jointly liable for a debt under a vehicle lease agreement.

The appellant argued her obligation was limited to a one-year guarantee based on a promise from her co-defendant, and that res judicata applied due to a prior default judgment against him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the trial judge.

The written agreement did not limit the obligation to one year, and section 139(1) of the Courts of Justice Act allows judgment against one jointly liable party without precluding judgment against another.

The defendants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing their appeal of a Master's decision to set aside a Registrar's dismissal of the action for delay.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the appeal judge's decision, which properly deferred to the Master's findings.

The court also found no issue transcending the interest of the parties or conflicting lines of authority to justify granting leave.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their appeal from a Master's decision.

The Master had dismissed their motion for a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendant accounting firm, limiting the scope of relevant documents to those relating to the fraud identified in a forensic auditor's report.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order regarding relevance.

Although the motion judge erred in applying an overly restrictive standard of review, this error had no impact on the outcome.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion to strike a paragraph of the respondent's reply pleading.

The applicants argued the paragraph improperly referred to a privileged settlement offer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the law of settlement privilege and that the evidentiary record supported the conclusion that the communication was not privileged.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application, the respondent university sought costs.

The court awarded costs to the respondent university fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court noted that the application served no public benefit, was based on voluminous materials, and was presented in a laborious manner that added significantly to the university's costs.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering him to return $41,743.15 paid by the respondent under a written agreement for a leasehold interest.

The respondent had defaulted on payments, prompting the appellant to cancel the contract and sell the interest to a third party.

The trial judge characterized the agreement as a purchase and sale without a forfeiture clause and ordered the return of the funds.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge committed an error of law by failing to consider the appellant's evidence that the contract was a 'rent to own' agreement where payments were non-refundable rent.