Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The defendant, United Parcel Service Canada Ltd., sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The proposed appeal challenged the certification of common issues relating to whether the defendant's brokerage fee practices constituted false or unconscionable representations, forced renegotiation of contracts, or breached requirements for future performance agreements under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

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

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The landlord defendants appealed an order certifying a class action against them founded on common law negligence following a series of devastating propane explosions.

The appellants argued that as landlords, they owed no duty of care to third parties in the surrounding residential neighbourhood.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the landlords had no obligation to act, given allegations that they knew of the highly dangerous propane business and the foreseeable risk of catastrophic harm to nearby residents.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order requiring them to produce a partially redacted copy of a Mary Carter Agreement to a non-settling defendant prior to trial.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that there were conflicting decisions on the extent to which the terms of Mary Carter Agreements must be disclosed to non-settling parties, and that there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the order in light of recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on settlement privilege.

The court held that the issue was of general public importance.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision which found that the plaintiffs' right of action for personal injuries sustained in a parking lot motor vehicle accident was not taken away under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its treatment of post-hearing evidence and in its factual findings regarding the employment status of the defendants.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable, it did not breach procedural fairness, and its weighing of the evidence was entitled to deference.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claim that a painting she purchased from the respondents, attributed to Norval Morrisseau, was a fake.

The trial judge found the painting was authentic based on expert handwriting analysis and fact witnesses, rejecting the appellant's evidence which included a statutory declaration by the artist.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and no reversible error of law regarding the admission of hearsay or opinion evidence under the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendant franchisor sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing its motion to transfer the action from Hamilton to Kitchener.

The defendant argued that leave should be granted under Rule 62.02(4)(a) due to conflicting decisions regarding the proper test for venue transfers under Rule 13.1.02(2)(b).

The court found that there were indeed conflicting lines of cases in Ontario—specifically the 'Siemens' threshold approach versus the 'Hallman' holistic approach—and granted leave to appeal to the Divisional Court to resolve the inconsistency.

The moving party sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) refusing to change the designation of the appellants from two individuals to a ratepayers' association.

The moving party argued the OMB erred in its interpretation of its rules regarding minor errors and reviews.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error of law or jurisdiction in the OMB's conclusion that the individuals who signed the appeal forms were the proper parties.

The Court also addressed a potential conflict of interest involving the moving party's counsel and adjourned the issue of costs.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order directing her to provide a detailed accounting of the proceeds from the sale of a property.

The underlying dispute involved allegations of fraudulent conveyances by the applicant's former spouse and his business partner to thwart support and equalization orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no issue of general public importance, as the matter was strictly a dispute between the parties over an accounting.

The appellant bank appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim against the respondent for an outstanding credit card balance of $7,017.85.

The trial judge found the bank failed to establish its case, as the respondent denied knowledge of the card and the bank's witness lacked personal knowledge of the transactions.

The bank argued the trial judge erred in fact and in law by refusing to let it question the respondent again on the second day of trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings based on credibility, and no unfairness in refusing further questioning since the bank provided no reasons for the request at trial.

In a costs decision following an appeal, the plaintiff sought costs against the defendants, and the individual defendant sought costs having successfully appealed the personal judgment against him.

The court awarded the plaintiff its trial disbursements and appeal costs against the corporate defendant.

However, the court denied the individual defendant his costs, despite his success on appeal, because he was the primary actor who caused the plaintiff's loss and obfuscated the corporate relationships.

The Independent Police Review Director brought a motion to quash a summons to witness issued to an investigator and for a declaration that counsel to the OIPRD was not required to bring the investigative file to her cross-examination.

The underlying application for judicial review sought to defer interviews of two police officers facing criminal charges until after their criminal trial.

The court granted the motion, finding that the evidence sought from the investigator and the investigative file was not relevant or necessary for the judicial review application, as it exceeded the narrow focus of the proceeding.

In a class action carriage dispute, the appellant was granted leave to appeal on only two specific issues.

The appellant subsequently filed a notice of appeal and factum that included arguments on issues for which leave had been denied.

The moving parties brought a motion to strike those portions of the appellant's materials.

The court held that an appellant cannot raise issues for which leave to appeal was explicitly refused, as doing so would render the leave requirement meaningless.

The court ordered the appellant to file a revised notice of appeal and factum limited to the permitted grounds.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion to amend their statement of claim to add a claim for knowing assistance against the respondent law firm and lawyer.

The Master had found the proposed claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the material facts were discoverable more than two years prior to the motion.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's decision, finding no error of law in the application of the test for knowing assistance and no palpable and overriding error in the Master's factual findings regarding discoverability.

The appellant law firm appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for unpaid forensic accounting services rendered by the respondent consulting firm.

The services were requested by a partner of the law firm who subsequently died.

The appellant argued that under s. 13 of the Evidence Act, the respondent's evidence regarding the retainer required corroboration because the partner was deceased.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory protection of s. 13 applies only to heirs, next of kin, executors, administrators, or assigns, and cannot be extended to a law firm partnership.

The appellant appealed an order finding him estopped from objecting to legal accounts paid by the Estate Trustee.

The appellant argued the motions judge erred by determining the substantive issue of estoppel during a first appearance for a motion for directions, depriving him of the opportunity to present evidence.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the motions judge should have resolved the conflict respecting the draft orders giving directions rather than deciding the substantive issue.

The appeal was allowed, the order was set aside, and the matter was referred back to the Estates List.

The appellants were successful on appeal, significantly increasing their recovery from the trial judgment.

The respondent sought costs based on a pre-litigation offer that exceeded the appeal award but was only open for five days.

The court noted the respondent made no Rule 49 offer, while the appellants made three, though for amounts greater than their ultimate recovery.

Given the recovery and the necessity of the appeal, the court awarded the appellants $15,000 inclusive of costs.

The applicants continued their application to seek a contribution towards costs from the decision-maker.

The Divisional Court found that while the continuation was not an abuse of process, the applicants failed to establish a factual foundation to seek costs from the decision-maker.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent damages for deficient roofing work.

The appellants argued that the trial judge erred by making findings of fact regarding the offset of shingles without supporting evidence.

The Divisional Court agreed that there was no evidence to support those specific findings.

However, the court upheld the judgment because other evidence, particularly regarding the improper overhang of the shingles, justified the complete removal of the roof and the damages awarded.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding the purchase of a 1982 Pontiac Trans Am, which he alleged was misrepresented as an original vehicle from the 'Knight Rider' television program.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence on misrepresentation and inducement.

The Divisional Court applied the Housen standard of review and found ample evidence supporting the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant did not rely solely on the respondent's representations and had conducted his own due diligence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to quash the applicant's application for judicial review.

The applicant sought review of 61 decisions made by various police oversight bodies regarding his complaints, but failed to provide specific grounds for any particular decision.

The applicant conceded he actually sought a general audit and review of policing in his community under section 25 of the Police Services Act.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding the application too broad, lacking specific grounds, and seeking relief for a non-justiciable issue, while granting the applicant liberty to bring a new, properly specified application.