Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The appellant, a city councilor, appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for defamation arising from an email exchange with the respondent, a community activist.

The trial judge had found that the appellant's email was defamatory and that the defence of qualified privilege was defeated by malice.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge failed to state and apply the correct legal tests for qualified privilege and malice.

Specifically, the trial judge erred by conflating the objective and subjective standards for honest belief and by failing to determine whether an improper purpose was the appellant's dominant motive.

The appellant contractor appealed a trial judgment that dismissed his claim for unpaid renovation fees and the respondents' counterclaim for defective work, while ordering the appellant to pay substantial indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law by implying a contractual term requiring the appellant to provide warranties, which contradicted the express written terms of the contract.

The court set aside the trial judgment, dismissed the counterclaim, and awarded the appellant his unpaid invoices totaling $22,727.54.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order granting the respondent $45,000 plus costs.

The appellant argued there were genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial, relying on defences of gratuitous bailment and ex turpi causa.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the full appreciation test from Combined Air.

The motions judge was entitled to evaluate credibility under Rule 20.04(2.1) and properly concluded the appellant's evidence was unbelievable and full of contradictions.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict and a trial judge's ruling on a threshold motion following a motor vehicle accident.

The jury found the appellant 10% liable and awarded $4,000, which was reduced to zero due to income replacement benefits.

The trial judge dismissed the claim for non-pecuniary damages, finding the appellant did not sustain a permanent serious impairment.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial accommodations, evidentiary rulings, the threshold decision, the jury charge, the verdict, and alleged trial judge bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's rulings and ample evidence to support the jury's verdict.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a $50,000 substantial indemnity costs order made after the parties reached a consent resolution on a relief from forfeiture application.

The court found the costs order was interlocutory, as the underlying consent order did not finally dispose of the parties' rights.

Leave to appeal was granted because there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the costs order, particularly regarding the motions judge's reliance on untested affidavit evidence, the characterization of the tenant as the successful party, and the awarding of costs against a corporate officer personally.

The court also found the proposed appeal involved matters of general importance regarding costs awards following settlements.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision certifying a multi-jurisdictional class proceeding regarding the prescription of CHAMPIX, a smoking cessation medication, and the subsequent $300,000 costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification decision.

The court held that the motions judge applied well-established legal principles and made no palpable and overriding error of fact or law.

The costs award was also upheld as there was no error in principle.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court order dismissing her motion for a new trial and brought a separate application challenging the same proceedings.

The respondent moved to quash the appeals, dismiss the application, and obtain an order prohibiting the appellant from bringing further proceedings without leave.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 31 of the Courts of Justice Act because the amount in dispute was less than the $2,500 prescribed limit.

The application was also dismissed as an abuse of process constituting a collateral attack on the Small Claims Court order.

The court declined to make a vexatious litigant order, noting such relief must be sought by way of an originating application rather than a motion, but directed that garnished funds held in court be paid out to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding him personally liable for unpaid invoices for poker tournament services provided by the respondent.

The trial judge had found a partnership or joint venture existed between the appellant and another individual, avoiding the need to pierce the corporate veil.

The Divisional Court held this was a palpable and overriding error, as the respondent's own evidence was that it believed it was dealing with the corporate entity, not the appellant personally.

The court set aside the personal judgment against the appellant and replaced it with a judgment against the corporate defendant.

The appellant moving company appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $22,419.00 in damages for retaining her personal property.

The dispute arose when the appellant demanded $889.88 for a move the respondent understood to be a fixed price of $500.00.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no overriding and palpable error in the trial judge's conclusions that a fixed price contract existed, the damage award was appropriate, and there was no bias shown by the trial judge.

The plaintiffs (respondents on appeal) brought a motion to quash the defendant's appeal to the Divisional Court on the basis that the aggregate judgment amount exceeded the $50,000 monetary jurisdiction threshold.

The defendant argued that only the costs order was being appealed, which was under $50,000, and that a single judge lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion because leave to appeal costs requires a full panel.

The court held that a single judge has jurisdiction to quash an appeal outside the court's monetary jurisdiction.

The court further held that jurisdiction is determined by the aggregate of the sums awarded in the judgment, not just the portion being appealed.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted.

The appellant purchased a nearly 100-year-old home from the respondent and subsequently discovered several defects, including water damage, unconnected plumbing, and electrical issues.

She sued for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation in Small Claims Court, but her claim was dismissed.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that there was no fraudulent misrepresentation and that the appellant, who had obtained a home inspection and negotiated a second offer, did not rely on any alleged misrepresentations.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal a 'no costs' order made by a Deputy Judge of the Small Claims Court after successfully moving to dismiss the plaintiff's claim due to the expiry of a limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the Deputy Judge made no error in principle and the costs award was not clearly wrong.

The court noted that leave to appeal costs orders should be granted sparingly and that the proposed appeal did not raise an issue of public importance, especially given the small monetary amount involved.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him and his corporation to pay $9,300 for a Persian carpet.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by granting judgment against him personally without piercing the corporate veil, as the cheque was drawn on the corporation's account.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that both the individual and corporate defendants were involved in the transaction, having both issued cheques for the purchase price.

As the defendants denied any transaction occurred, the trial judge correctly found them jointly and severally liable as co-buyers.

The appellant, Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for damages against the respondent contractor who ruptured a gas main while excavating with a backhoe.

The trial judge had found no liability, reasoning that the gas main was not buried at the required depth and a utility locate would not have prevented the incident.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors.

The respondent breached his statutory duty and standard of care by failing to obtain a locate before digging, which was the sole cause of the damage.

Judgment was granted in favour of the appellant for the repair costs.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing their motion to expunge references to an inadvertently disclosed privileged email from the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The plaintiff, a former employee, had received an email from management to the company's lawyers discussing her termination, which prompted her to claim wrongful dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's conclusion that preserving the privilege would be unfair to the plaintiff, as the email fundamentally affected her state of mind and formed the basis of her claim.

The appellant condominium owner sought access to election proxies and ballots after an unsuccessful bid for the board of directors.

The Small Claims Court initially ordered production of the records, but later varied the order to require redaction of identifying information to protect owner privacy.

The appellant appealed the variation order to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the appealed order was procedural and did not involve a monetary amount, and further held that the Small Claims Court judge had jurisdiction to clarify the order.

The federal government sought costs of $16,235.75 on a partial indemnity scale against the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic and the City of Toronto following the dismissal of their respective motions for leave to appeal and leave to intervene regarding changes to the firearms registry.

The court declined to award costs against the City of Toronto, noting the usual rule that intervenors are neither granted nor awarded costs and that the City acted in good faith.

The court also declined to award costs against the Clinic, recognizing it as a non-profit organization that advanced a claim in the public interest with a genuine interest in the issues in dispute.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his negligence and breach of contract claim against a home inspector.

The appellant alleged the inspector failed to identify wood rot during a pre-purchase visual inspection of a cottage.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the appellant failed to prove the standard of care or a breach thereof, noting the absence of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly the inspector's testimony that the rot was concealed and not observable during the initial visual inspection.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their application for security for costs and awarding substantial indemnity costs against them.

The defendants argued the corporate plaintiff failed to prove impecuniosity because it did not provide evidence that its creditors refused to fund the litigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding there is no absolute requirement in every case for a plaintiff to show creditors declined to fund the litigation to establish impecuniosity.

The court also upheld the motion judge's findings on the merits of the claim and the costs award.

Following a motion for leave to appeal, the court received written submissions on the reserved issue of costs.

The moving parties argued for a no-costs order, while the responding party sought its costs.

The court found that the responding party was entitled to its costs on a partial indemnity scale, noting that the moving parties had a full hearing on constitutional issues and did not disclose their funding arrangements to support a no-costs order.

Costs were fixed at $28,000 all-inclusive.