Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The appellant employee was placed on a temporary unpaid layoff and later claimed constructive dismissal.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the employer, finding the employee had acquiesced to the layoff.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the order, holding that the motion judge erred in law by finding acquiescence without first analyzing the terms of the employment contract to determine if the employer had the right to lay off the employee, as required by the Supreme Court's two-step test in Potter.

Following a successful appeal from a Small Claims Court decision, the appellant sought costs for both the appeal and the trial below.

The court awarded the appellant $2,500 for the trial, declining to interfere with the quantum determined by the trial judge, but reversing the entitlement.

For the appeal, the court applied the principles from Boucher and Rule 57.01, awarding $2,500 plus HST for fees and $1,071.69 for disbursements, for a total costs award of $6,396.69.

The moving party corporation sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to set aside or stay an interim payment order requiring it to advance legal fees to a former officer facing criminal charges in the United States.

The moving party argued that a recent jury verdict of guilty in the US constituted sufficient evidence of mala fides to overcome the indemnification obligation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, as the US verdict had not yet been entered as a final judgment and the risk of non-repayment did not constitute irreparable harm.

The appellants appealed an order removing their lawyers of record, which was made during a motion to consolidate and extend time.

The Divisional Court found the motions judge clearly erred by proceeding without proper notice, without supporting evidence, without allowing responding evidence, and on a motion brought by a respondent who lacked standing.

The appeal was allowed, the order was set aside, and costs were awarded against the respondent personally.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision that allowed an appeal from a master's severance order.

The plaintiffs, two sisters, alleged historic sexual abuse by their uncle.

The master had severed their claims, but the motion judge reversed this, finding the claims fit within a 'series of occurrences' under Rule 5.02(1)(a) and that joinder was appropriate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and no issue of such importance to warrant granting leave.

The appellant law firm appealed a Master's decision that varied an earlier costs order and awarded $1,000 in costs to the self-represented respondent upon the discontinuance of a fee recovery action.

The respondent also appealed, challenging the discontinuance and seeking higher costs.

The Divisional Court allowed the appellant's appeal regarding the variation of the costs order, finding the Master was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to vary costs orders previously made by superior court judges.

The appeals regarding the $1,000 costs award were dismissed, as the Master reasonably approximated the respondent's disbursements and correctly applied the law regarding self-represented litigants' entitlement to costs for foregone income.

Following a successful motion for security for costs, the respondent sought costs on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

The appellant failed to file costs submissions despite an extension of time.

The court considered the lack of complexity and the principle of proportionality, fixing costs in the all-inclusive sum of $2,500.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision dismissing his motion to set aside a Registrar's Order that had dismissed his personal injury action for delay.

The appellant's former counsel had failed to advance the action, missed deadlines, and ignored the dismissal order for years due to a lack of any system for tracking deadlines.

The Divisional Court found that while the Master made some factual errors regarding prejudice, her overall exercise of discretion was entitled to deference.

The court held that the egregious conduct of the appellant's counsel and the resulting prejudice to the respondent justified refusing to set aside the dismissal order.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an order releasing $75,000 from funds frozen under a Mareva injunction to allow the defendants to pay legal fees.

The plaintiffs argued the order conflicted with a prior decision dismissing the defendants' motion to vary the injunction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decision as the factual circumstances had changed, and no reason to doubt the correctness of the discretionary order.

The moving party, a commercial tenant, sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing its summary judgment motion.

The underlying motion sought an order requiring the respondent landlord to indemnify the tenant for a personal injury claim arising from a slip and fall on ice in a common area, pursuant to a commercial lease.

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 interpretation of the lease's indemnity and insurance provisions.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment and awarding the plaintiff $81,955.05 in costs.

The underlying action involved claims of software copyright infringement, which the defendants argued were barred by a quitclaim and the expiry of the limitations period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the limitations and quitclaim issues required a trial to resolve credibility concerns.

The court also declined to grant leave to appeal the costs award, finding the motion judge reasonably inferred the plaintiff's costs based on the disparity between the parties' costs outlines.

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

The applicant sought disclosure of a letter, an issue that was already the subject of a pending appeal from a Law Society Appeal Panel decision.

The court granted the motion to quash, holding that absent exceptional circumstances, proceedings should not be fragmented by bringing a judicial review application on the same issue as a pending appeal.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant brought a motion seeking disclosure of an electronic version of a letter to adduce as fresh evidence on his upcoming appeal of a Law Society disciplinary decision.

The appellant had previously brought similar motions before the Hearing Panel and Appeal Panel, which were dismissed on the basis that the letter was irrelevant to the allegation of failure to cooperate.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence sought was not 'fresh evidence' but rather evidence previously ruled irrelevant, and the proper route to challenge that ruling was through the appeal itself.

The appellant's appeal and two interlocutory motions were dismissed.

The respondent sought costs of $10,000 on a partial indemnity basis, while the self-represented appellant argued for no costs against him and $1,300 in his favour.

The Divisional Court found no reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event.

The court awarded the respondent $10,000 in costs, noting the extensive preparation and helpful submissions of respondent's counsel compared to the appellant.

Following a successful appeal that certified a class action against the Toronto Police Services Board, the court determined the costs of the original certification motion.

The appellant sought over $749,000, while the respondent argued for costs thrown away or no costs due to the appellant significantly reformulating her claim on appeal.

The Divisional Court held that while the appellant was entitled to costs because the case involved matters of public interest, the amount must be reduced to reflect the time spent on claims against defendants that were later abandoned.

The court fixed the costs of the original certification motion at $125,728.03 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant commenced a Small Claims Court action for goods sold and delivered.

The respondent counterclaimed and later commenced a Superior Court action for a higher amount, successfully moving to transfer the Small Claims Court proceedings to the Superior Court.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motions judge erred by failing to consider whether the issues were capable of being justly resolved in the Small Claims Court, as required by the Vigna test.

The transfer order was set aside, allowing the Small Claims Court action to proceed.

The OSPCA appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $11,926.83 in Charter damages under s. 24(1) following a warrantless search of his farm.

The trial judge had found a s. 8 Charter breach but failed to conduct the required functional analysis under Ward.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the remedies already granted at the Provincial Offences Act trial (exclusion of evidence and withdrawal of charges) sufficiently fulfilled the functions of vindication and deterrence.

The court substituted the Charter damages award with nominal damages of $100 for trespass.

Two legal associations brought motions for leave to intervene in an appeal concerning professional misconduct and the role of advocates.

The appeal raised issues regarding when zealous advocacy crosses into actionable misconduct and the use of prior court decisions in disciplinary proceedings.

The court granted both motions, finding that the proposed interveners, as recognized organizations of advocates, would provide useful perspectives on the implications of the issues raised without duplicating the parties' submissions.

The respondent law firm commenced an action in the Small Claims Court to recover $26,051.59 in legal fees pursuant to a contingency fee agreement after the appellant terminated its services.

The appellant moved to dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction, which the Deputy Judge dismissed without reasons.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that under the Solicitors Act, the Small Claims Court is expressly excluded from considering issues arising under a written fee agreement.

The appeal was allowed and the Small Claims Court action was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction restraining them from soliciting the plaintiff's clients and using its confidential information.

The individual defendants had left the plaintiff's employment to join the corporate defendant, allegedly taking client lists and soliciting clients in breach of non-solicitation agreements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's application of the strong prima facie case test, the finding of irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business viability, and the balance of convenience.