Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The appellant seller appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent buyers $25,000 in damages for misrepresentation.

The seller had answered 'no' to a question about flooding on a Seller Property Information Statement, despite knowing of a severe water accumulation problem in the backyard.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the misrepresentation was fraudulent or negligent, that the defect was latent, and that the 'entire agreement' clause did not exclude liability because the SPIS was incorporated into the agreement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent contractor the balance owing for home renovations.

The appellant argued the contract was illegal and unenforceable because the respondent did not hold a building renovator's licence under the Toronto Municipal Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the appellant failed to prove the nature of the work required a licence.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside the orders of a motions judge who had dismissed her motion to amend an application for judicial review and dismissed the application as moot.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, noting it was brought outside the four-day time limit and the applicant failed to identify any error of law.

The panel confirmed the motions judge had jurisdiction to hear the motion to amend pursuant to section 21(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order lifting a stay of the plaintiff's constructive dismissal action.

The defendants argued the action was barred because the Public Hospitals Act provides a comprehensive code for disputes over hospital privileges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the motion judge's conclusion that the hospital failed to demonstrate the decision to substantially alter the plaintiff's privileges was made pursuant to the Act or hospital by-laws.

The defendants, Via Rail and GEXR, sought leave to appeal an order that permitted the plaintiffs to add GEXR as a defendant after the presumptive limitation period had expired.

The motions judge had found that the plaintiffs exercised due diligence and could not have reasonably discovered GEXR's involvement earlier.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision on discoverability, prejudice, or costs, and noting the decision did not raise matters of general public importance.

Correctional Service of Canada brought an urgent motion to stay a ruling by the Coroner presiding over the Ashley Smith inquest.

The Coroner had dismissed CSC's motion for a sealing order regarding confidential documents and videos.

Applying the RJR Macdonald test, the Divisional Court found that CSC failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried or irreparable harm, noting that much of the information was already public and the assertions of harm were speculative.

The motion for a stay was dismissed with costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision denying him leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

The Court of Appeal had ordered the appeal to be heard by a three-judge panel of the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court panel held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter as a panel appeal, noting that the appropriate route is to seek leave to appeal from a single judge of the Superior Court of Justice.

With the consent of the parties, the matter was converted to a motion for leave to appeal to be determined by one member of the panel sitting as a Superior Court judge.

The applicant, a public interest group opposing the use of diesel trains on the air rail link, brought a motion for leave to file an affidavit after completing cross-examinations.

The affidavit sought to explain the applicant's delay in bringing its application for judicial review.

The court applied the four-factor test for granting leave under Rule 39.02(2) and found that the evidence was relevant, responsive to cross-examination, would not cause non-compensable prejudice, and had a reasonably adequate explanation for its late filing.

Leave was granted to file the affidavit, subject to the exclusion of several irrelevant paragraphs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that had dismissed a previous motion for leave to appeal.

The previous motion was dismissed due to the moving party's failure to pay costs and comply with prior procedural orders.

The court dismissed the current motion, finding that the previous judge properly exercised discretion in dismissing the motion based on procedural default and non-payment of costs.

The court noted the moving party lacked standing to appeal interlocutory orders until complying with or varying the prior orders.

The corporate defendant appealed an order striking its statement of defence for failing to comply with an interlocutory order requiring it to retain new counsel or obtain leave to be represented by a non-lawyer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge made no error in concluding the defendant's recalcitrance and failure to comply with the clear terms of the order warranted the severe penalty of striking its pleadings.

The appellants appealed an order requiring the individual appellant to pay the respondent $22,253.23 pursuant to a consent judgment based on minutes of settlement.

The appellants argued the motion judge failed to consider the factual matrix surrounding the settlement and misapplied section 30 of the OBCA.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that section 30 was not contravened because the corporate defendant was not ordered to pay for the shares, and that the clear terms of the consent judgment did not require reference to the factual matrix.

The respondent employee was entirely successful on a Small Claims Court appeal regarding her wrongful dismissal.

The court received written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $12,915.90, while the appellant employer argued each party should bear their own costs or that costs should be reduced.

The court rejected the appellant's argument, finding no reason to depart from the normal rule of partial indemnity costs.

The court fixed the respondent's costs of the appeal at $8,500 plus HST.

The appellant sought to appeal a final order declaring a solicitor-client relationship and remitting the matter to an assessment officer.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, holding that its jurisdiction under sections 19(1)(a) and 19(1.1) of the Courts of Justice Act is limited to appeals from monetary awards.

As the judgment appealed from was not a monetary award, the court lacked jurisdiction.

The successful respondents sought partial indemnity costs for four appeals totaling $10,495.51.

The appellants argued for no costs or a reduced amount of $3,000.

The court found the respondents' request reasonable and in line with the Boucher test, noting the appellants' own costs outline was for $9,549.24.

The court awarded the respondents costs of $2,623.88 for each appeal, totaling $10,495.51.

The moving party, Donald Bartlett Jr., sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that dismissed his motion to amend his statement of defence and withdraw admissions made in 1990 regarding a guarantee.

The Divisional Court applied the test under Rule 62.02(4)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the court found good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's findings on two of the three elements for withdrawing an admission, it found no reason to doubt the finding on the second element (inadvertence or wrong instructions).

Furthermore, the court held that the matter did not involve issues of public importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $7,000.

The appellant, acting as estate trustee, brought a motion for a stay of an order requiring her to pay $10,000 as security for costs pending her motion for leave to appeal that order.

The underlying action against her father's former common-law spouse was dismissed on summary judgment.

The appellant argued that a serious issue to be tried existed regarding whether American Sign Language (ASL) constitutes an oral language, which would exempt an alleged agreement from the writing requirement of s. 55 of the Family Law Act.

The court found that the appellant failed to establish a serious issue to be tried, noting the previous judge's finding that the appeal was almost certain to fail.

The motion for a stay was dismissed with costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision refusing an interlocutory injunction to prevent the federal government from destroying data about unrestricted firearms in the Firearms Registry.

The moving party argued that the destruction of data would disproportionately affect women and endanger their safety, violating sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions that applied different principles and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's discretionary decision to refuse the injunction.

The appellant purchaser appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for the return of a $25,000 deposit after a failed real estate and restaurant purchase.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in his findings regarding the vendor's failure to provide a survey, the treatment of stock, and the status of employees.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law in the trial judge's conclusion that the purchaser's breach was not justified.

The City of Toronto sought leave to intervene in a motion for leave to appeal a decision refusing an interlocutory injunction regarding the federal firearms registry.

The underlying application by the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic challenged the constitutionality of legislation eliminating the requirement to register unrestricted firearms.

The court dismissed the City's motion to intervene, finding that the City could not make a useful contribution to the narrow issue of whether leave to appeal should be granted, as no further evidence would be admitted and the applicant could fully argue the relevant issues.

The defendants brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a Small Claims Court judgment.

The court applied the four-part test under Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring a fixed intention to appeal, a good explanation for the delay, merit to the appeal, and no prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court found that the defendants failed to meet at least three of the four requirements, noting a lack of fixed intention, unexplained delay, and no obvious merit to the appeal.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.