Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The self-represented applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's responding materials on a judicial review application, arguing they were filed outside the 30-day time limit prescribed by Rule 68.04(4).

The respondent had waited to file its materials until the applicant perfected his application, acting on advice from the Divisional Court office.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the respondent's conduct was reasonable, responsible, and in good faith, and that the applicant suffered no prejudice from the delay.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision awarding costs against him personally, despite him not being a party to the underlying zoning appeal.

The Board had found him to be the 'real litigant' or 'straw man' behind a non-profit corporation's appeal.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the questions of whether the Board has statutory jurisdiction to award costs against a non-party and whether it erred in principle in doing so on the facts of this case.

Leave was denied on issues of fair notice and SLAPP legislation.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a Master's order that had dismissed her motion for further production of her former solicitor's file.

The court applied the test for extending time to appeal and found that the proposed appeal lacked merit, as the Master had made factual findings that the requested documents were either already produced or did not exist, and correctly held that intake notes belong to the solicitor.

The motion was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The tenant brought a motion to vary or set aside an order of a single judge that dismissed his appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order and vacated the stay of eviction.

The tenant argued the motion judge erred by failing to consider evidence explaining his non-compliance with an interim consent order and by finding no merit to his appeal despite the Board refusing to hear his evidence on premises deficiencies.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact.

The court noted the tenant's counsel did not attempt to present the non-compliance evidence before the motion judge, and the Board had the authority to refuse evidence of deficiencies once the tenant breached the interim consent order.

The appellant appealed a Master's order dismissing her motion to substitute a named individual for a 'John Doe' defendant on the basis of misnomer, or alternatively to add the individual after the expiry of the limitation period.

The appellant had the vehicle's license plate number since the motor vehicle accident but did not identify the owner until after the limitation period expired.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Master's conclusion that this was not a classic misnomer and that the appellant failed to exercise due diligence to discover the defendant's identity.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action was a subrogated claim brought by an insurer in the names of the respondents for damages arising from a fuel oil spill.

The appellants argued the action was a nullity because the respondents were undischarged bankrupts when the claim was issued, meaning their causes of action had vested in their Trustees.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the insurer's subrogation rights crystallized before the husband's assignment in bankruptcy, and the Trustee had disclaimed interest in the insurance claims.

Thus, the insurer was entitled to commence the action in the husband's name.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing their summary judgment motion without prejudice and awarding costs to the plaintiff.

The motions judge had dismissed the motion after the defendants attempted to argue the merits of the case, contrary to a prior direction limiting the motion to limitation period and estoppel issues.

The defendants argued they were denied natural justice because the judge refused to release the audio recording of her oral reasons and failed to decide the limitation period issue.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and concluding that the motions judge properly intervened when the defendants attempted to ambush the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed an order varying an assessment officer's report regarding legal fees.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that the assessment officer provided only conclusory reasons for reducing the respondent's hourly rates and had no evidentiary basis for disallowing the cost of two lawyers appearing in court.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $8,000.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the dismissal of her motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action involved a motor vehicle accident where the moving party owned the vehicle driven by her uninsured daughter.

The moving party sought summary judgment on the basis that she did not consent to her daughter driving the vehicle.

The motions judge dismissed the summary judgment motion, refusing to admit discovery evidence and declining to apply the summary judgment framework.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the motions judge's evidentiary rulings and concluding it was a matter of general importance to consider whether the motions judge's approach was consistent with the principles in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order staying his action for non-payment of previous costs awards.

The moving party had initially appealed to the Court of Appeal, which quashed the appeal, and then delayed three months before bringing this motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding it utterly without merit and noting the moving party's long delays and failure to pay costs.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the responding parties in the amount of $8,000.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding them liable for failing to complete grading and drainage repairs in a good and workmanlike manner prior to the closing of a residential real estate transaction.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding on liability, noting that the basement flooded after the repairs were purportedly completed, allowing for an inference of poor workmanship under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

However, the court found that the trial judge erred in assessing damages without providing reasons for accepting a specific quote that included work beyond the scope of the required repairs.

The appeal was allowed in part, and a new trial was ordered solely on the issue of damages.

The appellant sought costs for a successful motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from a Small Claims Court decision.

The appellant claimed over $2,700 in costs, arguing the motion was necessitated by the self-represented respondent's lack of cooperation.

The court found the claimed amount excessive and disproportionate for a Small Claims matter, noting the respondent did not evade service.

The court awarded the appellant costs of $500 all inclusive.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granting the respondent monies due under a defaulted mortgage.

The appellants argued the judgment should not have been granted or should have been stayed because of an ongoing 2011 action alleging misappropriation of funds by a financial advisor who allegedly controlled the respondent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence linking the respondent to the defendants in the 2011 action and no triable issues regarding liability under the mortgage.

The court also denied leave to appeal the motion judge's costs award.

Following the dismissal of two appeals heard together, the successful respondents sought costs.

One respondent sought substantial indemnity costs based on a Rule 49 offer to settle, while the other sought partial indemnity costs.

The appellant argued that no costs should be awarded because the appeal raised a novel issue of law regarding the interpretation of the Construction Lien Act.

The Divisional Court rejected the appellant's argument, finding the issue was not novel and the appellant's interpretation would have rendered section 20(2) of the Act meaningless.

The court awarded costs of $7,500 to each of the successful respondents.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order that dismissed its motion to disqualify the defendants' law firm of record.

A lawyer who had worked extensively on the plaintiff's case moved to the defendants' boutique law firm.

The plaintiff argued the ethical wall put in place was insufficient.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order because he appeared to reverse the onus by treating the matter as a balancing act rather than applying the rebuttable presumption of disqualification.

The court also found the issue of migrating lawyers and confidential information to be of significant importance to the profession and the public.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering them to repay $21,029.98 to the respondent for a botched solarium roof replacement.

The trial judge found the work was shoddy, negligent, and performed without a building permit, providing no benefit to the respondent.

The trial judge also pierced the corporate veil to hold the individual appellant personally liable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings and upholding the decision to impose personal liability due to the individual's improper conduct.

The applicants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment.

They argued the motion judge failed to properly apply the summary judgment framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin and failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, as the judge had properly identified genuine issues of credibility regarding alleged undue influence and elder abuse, and correctly concluded that fact-finding powers could not resolve the dispute fairly.

The court also found the proposed appeal did not involve matters of general public importance.

The defendant bailiff company brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The bailiff argued it had statutory immunity for seizing a crane, relying on a previous case.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the previous case distinguishable because the bailiff here seized property from a location and person not named in the writ of seizure.

The court held the bailiff did not act in accordance with the court order, and there was no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.

The Public Guardian and Trustee, acting as litigation guardian for a mentally incapable plaintiff, appealed a motion judge's refusal to approve settlements that would dismiss two actions without costs.

The motion judge had held that the plaintiff had an absolute right to a hearing.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that there is no absolute right to a hearing and that a litigation guardian has the authority to settle actions if it is in the best interests of the party under disability.

The court approved the settlements.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claim for vehicle damage and awarding the respondent insurer damages on its counterclaim for a staged accident.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and failed to find a conspiracy against her.

The Divisional Court applied the standard of palpable and overriding error for findings of fact, concluding the trial judge's findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.