Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The defendants appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the plaintiff damages for constructive dismissal and unpaid invoices, and finding the individual defendant personally liable.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of constructive dismissal but set aside the wrongful dismissal damages because the plaintiff failed to adduce any evidence of lost income following his termination.

The court also set aside the finding of personal liability against the individual defendant, as it was not pleaded and the plaintiff had the onus to establish he contracted with the individual rather than the corporation.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering them to pay $25,000 to the respondents.

The respondents had loaned $35,000 to a deceased family member, and the appellants had signed a written acknowledgment to repay the loan from the proceeds of a house sale.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the action was not statute-barred due to the written acknowledgment and the date of discovery.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding of a constructive trust over the sale proceeds and concluded that the trial judge's interventions during the self-represented trial did not amount to bias.

The appellant law firm appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action for unpaid legal fees.

The motion judge found the action was a nullity under section 2(1) of the Solicitors Act because it was commenced before the final account was delivered, and that the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge made no error in law in allowing the defendants to amend their pleadings, finding the action a nullity, and concluding there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The appellant municipality appealed the dismissal of its motion for summary judgment.

The municipality argued the plaintiffs' action was statute-barred under s. 44(8)(b) of the Municipal Act, 2001, claiming the vehicle collided with a pole on an 'untravelled portion of a highway' (a median).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that determining whether the median was an untravelled portion of the highway required a trial to fully appreciate the evidence regarding reasonably foreseeable vehicular and pedestrian use.

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

The motion judge had found a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the plaintiff's claim for unpaid bonuses was statute-barred, applying the discoverability principles under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, particularly given the fact-specific nature of the discoverability issue in the employment context.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an order that continued existing banking and management arrangements for joint venture properties, rather than ordering a court-appointed sales officer to distribute sales proceeds directly to the ultimate owners.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's highly discretionary decision and concluding the proposed appeal did not involve a matter of general importance.

The applicant moved for a stay of enforcement pending her appeal of an order dismissing her motion to set aside a default judgment for possession of her property.

The respondent mortgagee had claimed possession based on mortgage default.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay.

While the applicant established irreparable harm, she failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried, as her proposed defences—including that dishonoured cheques discharged her debt and demands for the original 'inked' mortgage—lacked legal merit.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

Following a motion regarding a residential tenancy and alleged fraud, both parties sought costs.

The appellant sought $20,050.64 and the respondent sought $12,674.61.

The court found that both parties had been successful in obtaining what they sought, as the appellant was permitted to remain in the home while the respondent began receiving rent.

Consequently, the court declined to make any costs order.

The appellant, Versailles Convention Centre, appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its $10,000 claim against the respondent for breach of contract regarding a convention hall booking.

The trial judge found the appellant's witness not credible and accepted the respondent's evidence that the parties mutually agreed to cancel the tentative booking.

The trial judge also found the cancellation clause to be an unenforceable penalty rather than a genuine pre-estimate of damages.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility, concluding there was no reversal of the burden of proof and that the damages claimed were arbitrary and excessive.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to quash the plaintiff's appeal to the Divisional Court.

The plaintiff had appealed a Master's note in the procedure book that varied the cap on the defendant's counterclaim from $26,572.54 to $364,447.73.

The court found that the Master's note was an interlocutory step, as the merits of the case remained to be determined and the Master had not issued a confirmed report.

Under section 71 of the Construction Lien Act, an appeal from an interlocutory order is forbidden.

The motion was granted and the appeal was quashed.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing brought a motion to quash an application for judicial review commenced by a landowner regarding a Minister's zoning order and a declaration of provincial interest.

The Minister argued the application should be dismissed for delay or prematurity, or alternatively, that portions of the supporting affidavits should be struck.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no unexplained delay, concluding it was not a clear case of prematurity to be decided by a single judge, and leaving the evidentiary issues for the panel hearing the merits.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs award made by the motion judge following the dismissal of a motion against two landlords of a bankrupt tenant.

The applicant argued that the reasons for the costs award were unclear and that the costs outline improperly included attendances for mediation and an offer to settle that did not meet Rule 49 criteria.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that there were ample grounds for the motion judge's exercise of discretion, including the urgency of the motion, the resounding success of the landlords, and the significant effort required to prepare materials.

The plaintiff sued the defendant bank for losses resulting from forged cheques due to employee dishonesty.

The bank's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action based on the banking contract was refused.

The bank sought leave to appeal the refusal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that while there may have been good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, the issues involved contractual interpretation specific to the parties and did not raise matters of public importance.

The appellant, a supplier of partitioning walls, appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its breach of contract claim against the respondent general contractor.

The respondent had ordered custom partitions but later suspended the project and refused delivery.

The trial judge dismissed the claim on the basis that the appellant failed to mitigate its damages by not stopping the manufacturing of the partitions after receiving notice of the suspension.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and concluded there was no error of law in applying the doctrine of mitigation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion for summary judgment in an action regarding the supply of defective pipes.

The defendants argued the motion judge erred in interpreting supply agreements, limitation periods, and the effect of settlement conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the issues were particular to the parties, did not raise conflicting decisions on matters of principle, and did not involve matters of broad public importance.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $19,263.30 for breach of a contract to supply school uniforms.

The trial judge found the appellant breached an agreement to purchase the respondent's remaining inventory and that the respondent had reasonably mitigated its damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or assessment of mitigation.

The court also upheld the trial judge's costs award, noting it was a reasonable exercise of discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a decision affirming a Master's order that granted a confidentiality order including a 'for counsel's eyes only' provision.

The appellant argued there were conflicting decisions on whether a court must scrutinize specific examples of materials before granting such an order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Sierra Club resolved any conflict, establishing that actual documents need not be scrutinized if an adequate description of the class of documents is provided.

The court also noted the importance of comparable protective orders in parallel Federal Court litigation.

The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing its claim for damages in negligence or breach of contract resulting from commercial carpet cleaning.

The Divisional Court held that the trial judge's refusal to draw inferences of negligence from circumstantial evidence was open to him and did not constitute a palpable and overriding error.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant vehicle owner sought leave to appeal the dismissal of its summary judgment motion.

The owner argued that the driver's criminal conviction for operating a motor vehicle without consent precluded re-litigating the issue of consent, making the claims an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the insurer had led evidence to the contrary raising a genuine issue for trial, and that a full appreciation of the evidence required a trial.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim against the municipality regarding alleged errors in his property tax calculations.

The Small Claims Court found that the claim was statute-barred and that it lacked jurisdiction to issue a declaratory order or deal with property tax disputes, which are governed by a comprehensive statutory scheme.

The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding no error in the determination that the claim was out of time and that the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment is ousted by the statutory scheme for property assessment and taxation.