Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order enforcing a settlement of her claims for statutory accident benefits against her automobile insurer.

The appellant had accepted an offer to settle but later rescinded it, arguing the offer did not qualify as a Rule 49 offer and thus was subject to the rescission provisions of the Automobile Insurance Regulation.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the offer required the appellant to release future claims not included in her statement of claim, meaning it was not a valid Rule 49 offer.

The appeal was allowed and the judgment enforcing the settlement was set aside.

The appellant purchaser entered into an agreement to buy a townhouse but failed to close the transaction due to financial difficulties.

The vendor retained the $35,000 paid by the appellant as a forfeited deposit.

The appellant sued for the return of the funds, claiming relief from forfeiture, but the trial judge dismissed the action.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant did not act reasonably and was therefore not entitled to relief from forfeiture.

The appeal was dismissed, with a dissenting opinion arguing that the payments were not explicitly defined as a deposit in the main agreement.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $1,500 in general damages and $1,500 in punitive damages for wrongful collection efforts.

The appellants argued the Deputy Judge erred in refusing an adjournment when their counsel was unavailable.

The Divisional Court upheld the refusal to adjourn, finding the decision discretionary and justified.

However, the court allowed the appeal on damages, reducing general damages to $565 for out-of-pocket legal expenses, as there was no evidence of recognizable psychiatric illness to support damages for mental distress.

The punitive damages award was set aside because the collection agency's conduct, while careless and frustrating, was not malicious.

The action against the individual employee was also dismissed.

Following a decision granting the proposed intervenors leave to intervene, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court found that the nature of the case and the intervenors' interests warranted a costs award to the successful intervenors.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court awarded costs on a modified partial indemnity scale, fixing the costs of the institutional intervenor at $5,500 and the individual intervenors at $6,500.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal from a Small Claims Court decision, the successful respondent sought costs on a substantial or full indemnity scale.

The court determined that partial indemnity was the appropriate scale, as no special circumstances justified a higher scale.

Applying the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, the court rejected the respondent's claim for over $9,600 in costs, noting the amount in issue at trial was only $6,872.

Costs were fixed at $3,500 all-inclusive.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's costs order, arguing that the respondent Lattice Engines Inc. should not have been awarded costs as its interests were identical to the respondent Scott's, and that the quantum of costs awarded to Scott was unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the respondents had distinct interests warranting separate representation and that the quantum of costs awarded to Scott was reasonable and not an error in principle.

The self-represented applicants brought a motion for an extension of time to file their Notice of Appeal.

The court found that while the delay was lengthy, the applicants had served the Notice of Appeal within the prescribed time limits but failed to file it with the court.

Finding no undue prejudice to the respondent and that the appeal was not entirely without merit, the court granted the extension of time and set a strict timetable for perfection.

The appellant was successful on appeal and cross-appeal and sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $30,000.

The Divisional Court found the claimed hours and rates disproportionately high and fixed the costs of the appeal at $17,500 all inclusive.

The court declined to exercise its jurisdiction to award costs of the trial, leaving that determination to the trial judge or an assessment officer due to a prior reservation of jurisdiction and a dispute over an agreement between counsel.

The appellant general contractor sued the respondent subcontractor for breach of contract after the respondent refused to commence work without an agreement for extra costs due to inaccurate tender documents.

The respondent counterclaimed for loss of profit and surveying costs.

The trial judge dismissed the appellant's claim and awarded damages to the respondent.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found that the substantial errors in the tender documents constituted a fundamental mistake that rendered the contract void.

Consequently, neither party was entitled to damages.

The appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the trial judgment in favour of the respondent.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action against the police for trespass, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and misfeasance in public office after officers shot and killed her pit bull terriers while executing an arrest warrant.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, placing an onus on her regarding alternative steps the police could have taken, and failing to find causation for her psychological injury.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments or his conclusion that the police acted reasonably in prioritizing human safety during a high-risk situation.

The court also upheld the trial judge's decision to decline making findings on causation given the lack of liability.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for summary judgment, which sought to dismiss the respondent's counterclaim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

The respondent had alleged fraudulent misrepresentation regarding a fuel-saving device but failed to file responding evidence on the summary judgment motion.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors by relying on unsupported pleadings and misapprehending when the limitation period commenced.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the counterclaim.

The appellant appealed an order enforcing a settlement agreement reached by his former counsel with the respondent police board.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in law by failing to consider her discretion to continue the proceeding under Rule 49.09(b) and erred in fact by ignoring his evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge properly exercised her discretion to enforce the settlement, as the former counsel had ostensible authority to settle and the appellant's remedy for any allegedly negligent legal advice lay against his former counsel, not the respondents.

The Bank of Montreal sought leave to appeal a decision certifying two related class actions arising from a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by a bank customer.

The Bank argued that the motions judge erred in finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action in knowing assistance and negligence, relying on section 437 of the Bank Act and the Anns test for duty of care.

The Bank also challenged the finding that the claims raised common issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's conclusions that it was not plain and obvious the claims would fail and that there was some basis in fact for the common issues.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a commercial sublease dispute.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended evidence concerning its departure from the premises and whether the respondent was estopped from seeking damages due to an alleged agreement with the head lessor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings that the appellant voluntarily vacated the premises and that there was no evidence of an agreement relieving the appellant of its sublease obligations.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision granting carriage of a class action against Armtec Infrastructure Inc. to a competing group of plaintiffs and staying his action.

The Divisional Court reviewed the test for determining carriage motions in class actions, confirming that the motion judge correctly identified and applied the test from Setterington.

The court held that the motion judge's qualitative analysis of the competing actions and his ultimate decision to grant carriage to the competing action was an exercise of discretion entitled to deference.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action for secondary market misrepresentation sought leave to appeal a decision quashing their summonses to two Manulife employees and refusing to compel the defendants to file affidavits on the upcoming leave motion under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, which followed established jurisprudence that defendants are not required to deliver affidavits or be subjected to cross-examination if they do not intend to lead evidence on the leave motion.

The defendant Crown sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action alleged that the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) was negligent and breached a fiduciary duty by reinstating a defaulting payor's passport, allowing him to leave the country and evade support arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the motion judge's conclusion that whether FRO owed a duty of care or a fiduciary duty to the support recipients were genuine issues requiring a trial.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a decision conditionally certifying a class action against a parking management company with significantly narrower parameters than proposed.

The plaintiffs challenged the motion judge's dismissal of causes of action under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, unjust enrichment, and unconscionability, as well as the imposition of a limitation period and the exclusion of punitive damages as a common issue.

The Divisional Court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order and no conflicting decisions warranting leave.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

The moving party sought an extension of time and leave to appeal a costs order following the consent dismissal of a long-standing action.

The motions judge had initially awarded costs to the moving party but, after receiving submissions on quantum, ordered no costs payable by either party.

The moving party argued a denial of natural justice.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion, as the costs claimed were $125,000, exceeding the $50,000 limit for Divisional Court jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act.

The motion was adjourned to the Court of Appeal.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Superior Court order striking his statement of claim without leave to amend.

The respondents moved to dismiss the appeal on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, delay, and being frivolous and vexatious.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the claim exceeded $50,000, the appellant failed to perfect the appeal on time, and the appeal was entirely without merit and an abuse of process.

The court also declared the appellant a vexatious litigant, prohibiting further proceedings without leave.