Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The appellant sought to certify a class proceeding on behalf of York University students whose classes were disrupted by a 2008 strike, alleging breach of contract, breach of the Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment.

The motions judge dismissed the certification motion, finding the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action because the claims improperly interfered with the university's academic discretion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motions judge's conclusion that the claims were barred by academic discretion and that the pleadings were insufficient to establish a contractual or statutory cause of action.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their claim for damages arising from their detention and search by police officers.

The officers had detained, handcuffed, and searched the appellants while investigating a break and enter, despite the appellants not matching the suspect descriptions.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error in concluding there were reasonable grounds for investigative detention.

The court also found the appellants were de facto arrested, not merely detained.

The court awarded each appellant $500 in damages for false arrest and imprisonment.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a trial judge's order denying him costs after he was awarded $12,000 in a wrongful dismissal action.

The trial judge denied costs under Rule 57.05(1) because the award fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, which had increased to $25,000 during the litigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, noting the plaintiff's continuing obligation to assess the appropriate forum and the undue length of the trial caused by the plaintiff's unsuccessful pursuit of punitive damages.

The court determined the costs of two pre-hearing motions in an appeal.

The respondent was awarded $2,500 in costs on a partial indemnity basis for successfully moving to strike the self-represented appellant's improperly cast motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded for the appellant's successful motion to extend the time for appeal, as the appellant required an indulgence from the court and the respondent took an unreasonable position in resisting the motion.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Case Management Master's decision dismissing a motion for her recusal based on a reasonable apprehension of bias in a construction lien proceeding.

The Divisional Court first determined it had inherent jurisdiction to hear the application despite the statutory prohibition on appeals from interlocutory orders under the Construction Lien Act, as the allegation went to fundamental fairness.

On the merits, the court applied the correctness standard and found that the applicant failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Master's procedural orders and expressions of frustration did not demonstrate bias to a reasonably informed bystander.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiffs were successful in their motion for leave to appeal, with the ultimate issue concerning the limitation period reserved to the trial judge.

The court awarded costs of the motion to the plaintiffs in the amount of $3,500, exclusive of disbursements and HST, considering the factors in Rule 57.01 and the uniqueness of the law.

The appellants appealed an order granting the respondent leave to amend her statement of claim to add a derivative claim against an insurer on behalf of a corporation.

The respondent sought to recover her investment losses under a fidelity bond issued to the corporation, alleging the corporation's principal committed fraudulent acts.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the principal was the controlling mind of the corporation and could not defraud his own corporation.

As the proposed derivative claim was bound to fail, the respondent was not a proper complainant under the Business Corporations Act.

The moving party (respondent on appeal) brought a cross-motion to quash the appellants' appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board order and to lift the statutory stay under s. 25(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The underlying dispute involved possession of a residential property where the moving party claimed an illegal lockout and the appellants were prospective purchasers who subsequently became tenants.

The court found the appeal was not manifestly devoid of merit and was brought in time, as it appealed the Board's review decision rather than the original interim order.

The court also declined to lift the statutory stay, finding the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo until the appeal could be heard.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion to appoint a monitor over the plaintiff charity's financial affairs, as well as the associated costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no conflicting decisions under Rule 62.02(4)(a) and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision under Rule 62.02(4)(b).

The court also found no error in principle in the motion judge's discretionary costs award.

The successful respondent on an appeal from the Small Claims Court sought partial indemnity costs of $15,961.25.

The appellant argued the costs were disproportionate to the $9,129.02 at issue in the appeal.

The court considered the Rule 57 factors, noting that while the monetary amount was small, the legal issues regarding priority between a perfected security interest under the PPSA and an unregistered non-possessory lien under the RSLA were complex and important to the appellant.

The court fixed costs at $9,500 plus HST.

The appellant, a lawyer, sought to appeal a decision of an Appeal Panel of the Law Society that dismissed his appeal from an Appeals Management Tribunal's refusal to extend the time to appeal a professional misconduct finding.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found the Appeal Panel's decision was reasonable.

The court agreed that the appellant failed to meet the criteria for an extension of time, noting a lack of bona fide intention to appeal, no reasonable explanation for delay, prejudice to the Law Society, and no merit to the appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The respondent successfully defended an appeal of a Small Claims Court judgment and moved for costs of the appeal and the motion, seeking $12,500.

The court noted that the amount claimed was out of proportion to the $10,000 value of the Small Claims Court case.

Applying principles of proportionality and considering the limits on costs in Small Claims Court proceedings, the court fixed the costs of the appeal and the motion at $2,500.

The appellant appealed a Master's order refusing to set aside the administrative dismissal of her action for damages for sexual assault.

The appellant argued that because her claim involved sexual assault and was not subject to a limitation period, the Master erred by not applying a more lenient test for setting aside the dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master correctly considered the nature of the claim as a contextual factor but properly concluded that the appellant's failure to move the action forward was unrelated to the nature of the assault, and that the respondents were entitled to expect compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant, Dietrich Construction Limited, sought leave to appeal an order allowing the plaintiffs to amend their Statement of Claim to include claims for sand removal dating back to 1998.

The defendant argued the motion judge erred regarding the expiration of the limitation period and the conflict between the Limitations Act, 2002 and Rule 26.01.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no conflict in the law and that discoverability remained a factual issue for the trial judge.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a costs order made by a motions judge following a consent order settling an estate administration dispute.

The motions judge had fixed costs based on written submissions, awarding the applicants $20,000 and the respondents $15,000.

The applicants argued the judge erred by not awarding full indemnity costs and by not reviewing the entire court file.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no error in principle in the motions judge's exercise of discretion and no conflicting decisions or matters of general importance to justify leave.

The applicants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment in a commercial lease dispute.

The underlying action involved a dispute over a $210,000 payment, which the tenants claimed was a security deposit and the landlord claimed was a commission.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that a trial was necessary to resolve conflicting evidence, and concluding that the matter did not involve issues of public importance.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their application to reopen a dispute over solicitor fees.

The dispute had previously been resolved through Minutes of Settlement during an assessment proceeding under the Solicitors Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's finding that attempting to reopen the settled dispute was an abuse of process, noting that a settlement of an assessment is not itself subject to assessment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for breaching a non-competition clause in his employment contract and ordering him to repay a $20,000 non-compete payment.

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

The appellant had met the conditions for the payment by remaining employed for one year and not competing during that time.

Although the non-competition clause was enforceable and breached later, the respondent proved no damages, so the action was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding the late property owner liable for annual levies for the maintenance of private roads and parklands in Wychwood Park.

The appellants argued that because the Trust Deed establishing the levies was not registered on title under the Land Titles Act, it was not binding.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the common law doctrine of actual notice applies under the Land Titles Act, and the owner was bound by the Trust Deed because he had actual notice of it.

The court also declined to hear new arguments raised for the first time on appeal regarding positive covenants and the rule against perpetuities.

The appellant, an inmate, appealed the dismissal of his action for malicious prosecution and Charter damages against a police officer and the Crown.

The appellant had been charged with assault causing bodily harm following a prison fight, but the charge was later withdrawn.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charge and did not act with malice.

The court also confirmed that mala fides is required to establish a breach of section 7 of the Charter in this context, and that the appellant sued the wrong level of government for his transfer to a maximum-security facility.

The appeal was dismissed.