Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The appellant contractor appealed the dismissal of its construction lien and quantum meruit claims against the respondent landowner.

The trial judge found the respondent was not an 'owner' under the Construction Lien Act because it did not request the work, which was performed under a separate contract with a third-party purchaser.

The Divisional Court upheld this finding, concluding there was no palpable and overriding error.

The Court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding that while the trial judge erred in requiring the respondent to have caused the deprivation, the claim still failed because the appellant's contract with the third party constituted a juristic reason for the enrichment.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion to set aside a worldwide Mareva injunction.

The injunction was originally granted ex parte in an action alleging the defendant perpetrated a massive fraud while CEO of Sino-Forest Corporation.

The Divisional Court denied leave on the issues of whether there was a prima facie case of fraud and risk of asset dissipation.

However, the court granted leave to appeal on three questions: whether an Ontario court can grant a Mareva injunction when the defendant has no assets in the jurisdiction, whether the undertaking as to damages provided by a non-party was sufficient, and whether that undertaking adequately protected the defendant's costs.

The moving party university brought a motion to set aside a decision of a single judge of the Divisional Court who refused to strike an affidavit filed by the responding party association on an application for judicial review of a labour arbitration award.

The arbitration upheld the termination of a professor for failing to grade students objectively.

The Divisional Court panel found that the motions judge erred in law by admitting the affidavit, as it did not meet the narrow Keeprite exception for admitting new evidence on judicial review.

The motion was granted and the affidavit was struck in its entirety.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory order made at a Small Claims Court settlement conference in a medical negligence action.

The order required the applicant to produce expert reports and directed third-party hospitals and doctors to produce the applicant's medical records.

The Divisional Court held that the Small Claims Court judge had jurisdiction to order the production of expert reports under the Rules of the Small Claims Court.

However, the court concluded that the Small Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to order third-party production of documents.

The application was allowed in part, and the third-party production order was set aside.

The respondent subcontractor obtained default judgment against the general contractor for unpaid work and subsequently sued the appellant owners for breach of statutory trust under the Construction Lien Act.

The motion judge granted summary judgment against the owners and their directors.

On appeal, the respondent conceded the motion judge erred in finding a subcontractor could be a beneficiary of the owner's trust under s. 7(1).

The respondent alternatively argued the owners were liable under s. 13 for having 'effective control' of the general contractor by paying its invoices.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, holding that merely paying invoices does not constitute effective control of a corporation's relevant activities.

The appeal was allowed and the claim against the owners dismissed.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order that allowed the respondent to amend its statement of defence, added a third party as a necessary party, and dissolved an injunction preventing the respondent from disposing of disputed lands.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal specifically on the issue of lifting the injunction, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of that part of the order because the moving party would suffer irreparable harm if the respondent sold the land before the court determined ownership rights.

Leave to appeal the joinder of the third party was denied.

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $6,156.71 following the dismissal of the appellant's motion for a stay.

The appellant argued that as a public interest litigant, no costs should be awarded, noting it had ultimately obtained the interim remedy from the Environmental Review Tribunal.

The court agreed with the appellant and ordered no costs for the motion.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for injuries the respondent sustained after tripping on an exterior mat at a hotel.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors by imposing a higher standard of care than the law requires and by concluding the mat was a hazard without sufficient evidentiary basis.

The action was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Master's order refusing to set aside a Registrar's order that dismissed their motor vehicle accident action for delay.

The action had been dismissed twice due to the appellants' former counsel's failure to advance the file.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Master's application of the Reid factors, noting the appellants failed to adequately explain the delay and the respondents suffered prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal the Master's costs order was refused.

The appellant subcontractor appealed the dismissal of its unjust enrichment claim against the respondent condominium corporation.

The general contractor went bankrupt, leaving the subcontractor unpaid.

The condominium corporation retained the statutory holdback but did not pay the subcontractor, who had not registered a lien.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in concluding the contract between the owner and general contractor was a juristic reason to deny the claim.

The court held the owner was unjustly enriched by retaining the holdback and awarded the subcontractor the holdback amount.

The appellants appealed a Master's order requiring them to pay $49,767.47 into court as security for costs pursuant to Rule 56.01(1)(c).

The appellants argued the Master erred by effectively rescinding an agreement to pay the outstanding costs upon the closing of a real estate transaction and by failing to recognize that a $300,000 deposit held by the respondent was sufficient security.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the Master's exercise of discretion to order security for costs.

The plaintiff appealed a motion judge's refusal to approve a class action settlement regarding alleged copyright infringement by the defendant's online legal database.

Following Supreme Court of Canada decisions that significantly enhanced the defendant's fair dealing defence, the parties agreed to a settlement including a cy-près payment and a non-exclusive licence from class members.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and approved the settlement, finding the motion judge erred in characterizing the licence as a property right and in elevating the standard for settlement approval by introducing 'institutional fairness' as a new factor.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision to certify four additional common issues in two related class actions brought by former employees regarding the distribution of a pension plan surplus.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the viability of the cause of action under s. 8(10) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, finding it was not plain and obvious that the employer-administrator was not in a conflict of interest.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to amend the class definition in one of the actions to remove restrictive and vague language.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that awarded only nominal damages for unpaid inventory after the respondent closed its business.

The trial judge found the respondent breached the contract but concluded damages could not be assessed due to lack of records.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by ignoring uncontested evidence regarding the value of the inventory.

The court substituted a damages award of $65,772.42 and awarded the appellant its costs of the trial and appeal.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim against the respondent bank for $4,350 in allegedly unauthorized withdrawals.

The trial judge found, based on video and documentary evidence, that the appellant had made the withdrawals himself.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact and rejecting the appellant's claim that he was denied a fair trial.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision reinstating a default judgment and garnishment proceedings.

The parties had previously signed Minutes of Settlement requiring the appellant to pay $4,000, with a default clause allowing for a $15,000 judgment if payments were missed.

The appellant stopped payment on the settlement cheques, triggering the default clause.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the lower court's factual findings and holding that the default clause was not unconscionable given that both parties were represented by counsel when the settlement was reached.

The applicants (defendants) sought leave to appeal an order that upheld a Master's decision refusing to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for delay.

The Master had found that while there was inordinate and inexcusable delay creating a presumption of prejudice, the plaintiffs successfully rebutted this presumption by showing that documentary evidence had been preserved and a fair trial was still possible.

The Divisional Court found no error of law or principle in the lower court decisions and refused leave to appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

The appellant lawyer appealed an order dismissing his motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the respondents.

The Divisional Court found the motions judge's one-sentence endorsement lacked adequate reasons, preventing appellate review.

Exercising its jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act, the Divisional Court heard the motion on its merits.

The court found that the parties' counsel had reached a binding settlement agreement via email, agreeing on the essential terms of a $15,000 payment and a full and final release.

The respondents' subsequent refusal to sign the documents was an improper attempt to resile from the agreement.

The appeal was allowed and the settlement enforced.

The applicant bank sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order awarding $30,000 in costs to the respondent Crown.

The costs were awarded after the Crown responded to an application involving a dissolved corporation and a void property transfer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge's discretionary costs award did not meet the strict test for leave under Rule 62.02(4), as there was no conflicting decision, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no matter of general importance.

The moving parties (Dover) sought leave to appeal a costs order made following an 18-day trial of three issues regarding a joint venture dispute.

The trial judge had awarded Dover partial indemnity costs of $120,000 plus disbursements, significantly reducing their claimed fees and expert costs despite Dover's success on the issues.

Dover argued the trial judge erred in applying the principles of proportionality, settlement offers, and in failing to award substantial indemnity costs due to the opposing party's conduct.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle and holding that the trial judge's discretionary costs award was entitled to considerable deference.