Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of its motion to certify a global class action against an Ontario accounting firm for negligence and negligent misrepresentation in an audit report.

The Divisional Court (majority) upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the conclusion that joinder was the preferable procedure and that Ontario lacked a real and substantial connection to the claims of the foreign investors.

The appeal and a motion for leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and certified the class action.

The appellants appealed a mistrial ordered by the trial judge in a civil fraud proceeding within a matrimonial context.

The trial judge declared a mistrial after thirteen days of evidence, citing the impact of extensive delay as the trial would have to continue on an installment basis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised her discretion and her decision was entitled to great deference.

The court provided directions for the new trial to minimize further delay, including preserving the evidence and rulings from the mistrial.

The appellant appealed a Master's order dismissing his motion to set aside a Registrar's dismissal of his motor vehicle accident action for delay.

The action was dismissed after the appellant's counsel inadvertently missed the deadline to set the matter down for trial.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Master made palpable and overriding errors in assessing the Reid factors and failed to take a contextual approach.

The court noted the appellant's clear intention to proceed, the solicitor's inadvertence due to staff changes, and the lack of prejudice to the respondents.

The dismissal order was set aside and the action revived.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent landlord $10,747.65 for rent arrears, repairs, misappropriation of glass doors, and clean-up costs following the end of a commercial lease.

The landlord cross-appealed the finding that track lighting constituted chattels or trade fixtures.

The Divisional Court applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review and found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings of fact and mixed fact and law.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The appellant, Day & Ross Inc., appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering it to pay $18,100 to the respondent, a factoring company that purchased invoices from a motor carrier.

Day & Ross had withheld payment, claiming equitable set-off for a spoiled load of cauliflower that it had paid the shipper for.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that Day & Ross acted as a load broker with no legal obligation to pay the shipper, that there was no implied assignment of the shipper's claim, and that equitable set-off did not apply.

The plaintiffs settled wrongful dismissal claims with the defendant, which included confidentiality provisions.

A court order directed the settlement to be filed.

The plaintiffs filed the settlement agreements for costs submissions.

The defendant claimed this breached confidentiality and sought to appeal a judge's endorsement that the filing was 'required by law'.

The appeal was quashed as the endorsement was not an order, or alternatively was interlocutory.

The defendant moved to set aside the quashing order and brought a motion for contempt.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the endorsement was not an order and there was no merit to the contempt claim.

The court ordered the settlement documents sealed and awarded substantial indemnity costs against the defendant.

The personal defendant sought leave to appeal a decision refusing to strike the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal claim against him.

The plaintiff alleged the personal defendant, as the owner and directing mind of the corporate defendants, was a common employer.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision regarding the personal defendant's liability, as allowing the claim to proceed without specific allegations of independent action could subject all directors to such lawsuits simply based on their position of control.

The moving party brought a motion to set aside an appeal decision after discovering that one of the panel judges had briefly represented him in a related matter 16 years prior, before her appointment to the bench.

Neither the judge nor the moving party recalled the relationship at the time of the appeal hearing.

Applying the objective standard for reasonable apprehension of bias, the court found that prudence dictated setting aside the decision and constituting a new panel to re-hear the appeal.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal and the respondent's cross-appeal regarding a finding of professional misconduct, the court determined the issue of costs.

The appellant argued that no costs should be awarded because the proceeding involved matters of public interest and novel issues.

The court rejected this argument, noting that while the case clarified the law, the appellant was unsuccessful and should bear the costs.

The court awarded costs of $30,000 to the respondent, which included a reduction to reflect the respondent's lack of success on the cross-appeal.

The appellants appealed a Master's order refusing to set aside a registrar's dismissal of their action for delay.

The Divisional Court found that the Master made factual errors regarding the calculation of delay and the alleged prejudice to the respondents concerning document preservation.

Furthermore, the Master failed to conduct a proper contextual analysis of the Reid factors, including the impact of recent amendments to Rule 48.14 extending the time for dismissal.

The appeal was allowed, and the dismissal order was set aside.

The moving party, a third-party subcontractor, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action involved a claim for damages resulting from severed power cables during demolition work.

The moving party argued that a full and final release barred the third-party claim for contribution and indemnity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no conflicting decision and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's conclusion that a trial was required to determine the parties' intentions regarding the release.

The moving party, the successful bidder on a police towing services Request for Proposal, brought a motion to be added as a party to an application for judicial review challenging the RFP.

The applicants conceded the moving party should participate but argued it should bear its own costs.

The court found the moving party was an essential party with a direct economic interest and relevant evidence to offer regarding allegations of collusion.

The motion was granted, and the moving party was added as a party respondent with full exposure and entitlement to costs.

The plaintiff appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to certify a negligent misrepresentation claim as a class proceeding.

The proposed class consisted of investors in the defendant's investment fund who received an information folder containing an allegedly misleading statement about replicating a stock index.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that a class action was the preferable procedure because it would overcome economic barriers to access to justice for tens of thousands of potential class members and would promote judicial economy by resolving common issues.

The appellant, a tenant in subsidized housing, appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claim for damages and partially allowing the landlord's counterclaim.

The appellant had spent her own money to repair flood damage after the landlord refused to do so.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal of her claim, agreeing it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act as she discovered her right to sue more than two years before filing.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding the counterclaim.

Although the appellant's affirmative claim was time-barred, she retained the right to use the landlord's breach of contract as an equitable set-off against the counterclaim for rent arrears.

The counterclaim award was therefore set aside, and costs were awarded to the appellant.

Following the dismissal of their appeals from decisions of the Environmental Review Tribunal regarding wind farm approvals, the appellant landowners argued they should not pay costs because the litigation was in the public interest.

The Divisional Court held that while the appeals were not public interest litigation that would merit no costs, they did contain a strong public interest component regarding the constitutionality of the legislative regime.

Taking this into account, along with the lack of particularity in the respondents' bills of costs and the lower scale of costs typically awarded on appeals to the Divisional Court, the court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs to the successful respondents totaling $67,000.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision finding that funds received by the respondent were not subject to an owner's trust under s. 7 of the Construction Lien Act and that there was no breach of trust regarding other funds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error by the motion judge on the first issue, and noting that the second issue was improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

The respondent's cross-appeal on costs was also dismissed.

The appellant contractor appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent homeowner damages for deficient renovations, including a faulty foundation and a replacement deck.

The appellant argued the foundation claim was statute-barred and the deck damages were not pleaded.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the foundation defect was not discovered until the homeowner learned weeping tile had not been installed.

The court also upheld the award for deck damages, noting the Small Claims Court's flexibility with pleadings where the defendant had advance notice and suffered no prejudice.

The applicants sought leave to appeal a Superior Court judge's order that overturned a Master's decision requiring the respondent to pay security for costs.

The Master had found the respondent was ordinarily resident outside Ontario and had insufficient assets.

The Superior Court judge reversed this, finding the respondent's directors and officers resided in Ontario and it had sufficient assets in a trust account.

The Divisional Court refused leave to appeal, holding that the Superior Court judge correctly applied the corporate residency test to the specific facts and that the issues did not raise matters of public importance warranting leave.

The plaintiff brought a motion to dismiss the defendants' appeal from orders setting aside a certificate of stay and directing the enforcement of a writ of possession for a property.

The defendants had failed to pay rent under a lease agreement tied to an uncompleted purchase and sale transaction.

The court found that the orders appealed from were not stayed by the filing of a notice of appeal, as they were not orders under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court also concluded that the appeals were manifestly devoid of merit and quashed them, directing the sheriff to enforce the writ of possession.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed his motion to strike the respondent's claim as statute-barred and struck his statement of defence.

The dispute involved a $16,000 promissory note for a tractor purchase.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appellant's application to introduce fresh evidence.

However, the court found the Deputy Judge made a palpable and overriding error by failing to explain how conflicting evidence regarding the date of the parties' last contact was resolved, which was crucial for determining when a demand was made under the Limitations Act.

The appeal was allowed in part, the order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to Small Claims Court for trial.