Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The respondents sought public funding for Jewish day schools in Ontario, arguing that the failure to fund them breached their Charter rights under ss. 2(a) and 15(1).

Ontario brought a motion to strike the application on the basis that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Adler definitively decided the issues.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding a reasonable prospect of meeting the Bedford/Carter test for revisiting binding precedent.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the application, holding that the motion judge erred in relying on facts and circumstances that were not new and in questioning the force of the majority analysis in Adler.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $15,000 payable by the applicant to the respondent, to be netted against a prior costs award.

The court also extended the interim relief previously ordered until the end of the day.

The proposed intervenor brought a motion seeking leave to intervene as an added party in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application challenged the Ministry of Energy's conclusion that the duty to consult regarding a pipeline replacement project was satisfied.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed intervenor had a direct interest in the proceeding, could be adversely affected by the judgment, and shared common questions of law and fact with a parallel appeal.

The moving party brought a motion to adduce six items of additional evidence in her application for judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).

The underlying application concerned the OIPRD's review of a police conduct complaint regarding an allegedly unlawful arrest for criminal harassment.

The Divisional Court applied the Keeprite principles for admitting new evidence on judicial review.

The court allowed the motion in part, admitting two documents that were potentially relevant to the issues on review, while excluding four documents that were either irrelevant or already in the record.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to certify her class proceeding for breach of fiduciary duty against her investment advisors.

The appellant argued that the advisors' professional rules and codes of ethics established a fiduciary relationship on a class-wide basis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an ad hoc fiduciary duty between a financial advisor and a client requires a multi-factor, case-by-case analysis, and cannot be established solely based on professional rules and ethical codes.

The tenant's tenancy was terminated by the Landlord and Tenant Board for non-payment of rent.

Her appeal to the Divisional Court was dismissed by the registrar after she failed to comply with an order requiring her to perfect the appeal and pay outstanding rent.

Following the lifting of the COVID-19 eviction moratorium, the landlord enforced the eviction order.

The tenant subsequently moved for a review of the order that set the conditions for her appeal.

The court found the motion appeared moot and directed the registrar to issue a notice under Rule 2.1, giving the tenant an opportunity to explain why her motion should not be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion for a mandatory injunction to compel the respondents to provide fleet insurance for their rental vehicles.

Fresh evidence revealed that the moving parties had sold their fleet, rendering the motion moot.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal on the basis of mootness, and alternatively on the merits, finding no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal regarding a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind turbine project, the successful respondent sought costs of $20,000.

The appellant argued no costs should be awarded as he was a public interest litigant and the appeal raised a novel issue.

The Divisional Court rejected these arguments, noting that private landowners challenging REAs are not public interest litigants and the appeal did not raise a novel issue.

The court fixed costs payable by the appellant to the respondent at $10,000.

The plaintiffs in two class action proceedings sought leave to appeal a case management judge's dismissal of their motion for contempt.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant municipality breached a court order limiting communication with class members during the opt-out period.

The court denied leave to appeal, finding that the case management judge correctly applied the test for civil contempt, reasonably concluded the order was subject to multiple interpretations, and that there was no conflicting case law or good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action against the LCBO for damages for conversion.

The appellant's credit card was used without his authorization to purchase over $37,000 in alcohol from the LCBO, which was delivered to a nightclub.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the LCBO did not commit conversion because there was no evidence of an intentional or wrongful act, as the LCBO had no knowledge the charges were unauthorized.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dismissing her motion to terminate an ex parte Mareva injunction and a related costs order of $33,500.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, which properly applied the test for Mareva injunctions and carefully reviewed the evidence.

The court also found the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general importance.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order requiring her to pay $150,000 to the responding party for interim disbursements under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules.

The moving party argued there were conflicting decisions regarding the requirement of exceptional circumstances and that there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions as the rule involves discretionary balancing to level the playing field, and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's factual findings and exercise of discretion.

The plaintiffs appealed an order dismissing their action for delay following a status hearing.

The action arose from alleged property damage during a swimming pool cleaning.

The Divisional Court found that the Master erred in her application of the test for dismissal for delay by failing to consider the overall context of the litigation, incorrectly identifying the period of delay, and mechanically applying a presumption of prejudice.

The appeal was allowed, the dismissal order was set aside, and the action was ordered to proceed to mediation and trial.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order staying his action until he paid outstanding costs orders.

The court reviewed the strict test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) and found no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

The motion judge had properly exercised discretion under Rules 57.03(1) and 60.12, noting the applicant's lack of reasonable explanation for non-payment and the weak merits of the action.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellant purchased a used vehicle from the respondent at auction on an 'as is' basis.

The next day, the appellant discovered the vehicle was not roadworthy and required significant repairs.

The Small Claims Court dismissed the appellant's claim for damages on the basis that the appellant failed to prove the defect existed at the time of sale and failed to mitigate its damages.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the trial judge erred by deciding the case on an unpleaded causation issue and by treating a failure to mitigate as a complete bar to recovery.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The defendant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for defamation and awarding the plaintiff $20,000 in damages.

The trial judge had held that while the defendant's statements in a union charge document were protected by qualified privilege, the privilege was defeated by malice.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found that the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in finding malice.

The evidence demonstrated the defendant had an honest belief in the truth of the statements, and his conduct did not amount to recklessness or a personal vendetta.

The appeal was allowed and the defamation claim was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding him liable for unjust enrichment for property management services provided by the respondent.

The appellant argued that the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in fact-finding and credibility assessments, and erred in quantifying damages without expert evidence on fair market value.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant continued to demand services and that the trial judge's credibility findings and damages assessment based on historical billing were reasonable.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory order from a Small Claims Court Deputy Judge, who had dismissed their motion to strike the respondent's claim for lack of jurisdiction and expiry of a limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that judicial review of interlocutory Small Claims Court decisions is only available in narrow circumstances, such as when the court acts without jurisdiction.

The court found that the Deputy Judge's provisional determination of jurisdiction based on allegations of theft did not warrant judicial review, as the Small Claims Court generally has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.

The applicant physician brought an urgent motion seeking declarations that the respondent hospital's Board of Directors was functus officio and reasonably apprehended of bias regarding any motion to lift an automatic stay of its decision to revoke his staff privileges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding it premature.

The court held that the Board was not functus officio because it had not previously adjudicated the issue of lifting the stay, as the applicability of the stay was only recently determined.

Furthermore, the court found no reasonable apprehension of bias merely because the Board had previously revoked the privileges or was the respondent in the statutory appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale, with the court cautioning counsel against personalizing criticism of opposing counsel.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it negligent and jointly and severally liable with a co-defendant for damages related to truck engine repairs.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by permitting the respondent to advance a negligence claim on the first day of trial without notice, and by finding negligence without evidence establishing the standard of care or how the appellant breached it.

The court also found errors in the trial judge's assessment of damages and the imposition of joint and several liability.

The judgment against the appellant was set aside and the claims against it were dismissed.