Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The plaintiffs and defendants both sought leave to appeal an order certifying a class action regarding an alleged global price-fixing conspiracy in the lithium-ion battery industry.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal the denial of certification for claims relating to unlawful means conspiracy and umbrella purchasers.

The defendants sought leave to appeal the certification of the civil remedy claim under s. 36 of the Competition Act.

The Divisional Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to appeal, finding conflicting decisions and that the issues merited appellate attention.

The defendants' motion for leave to appeal was denied, as they failed to establish conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the certification order.

The respondent mother brought a motion to strike the appellant father's appeal of a garnishment dismissal order.

The father had a lengthy history of vexatious litigation, deliberately avoiding child support obligations, and failing to pay numerous prior costs awards totaling over $25,000.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to strike the appeal, awarded costs to the respondent, and ordered that the father may not bring any further claims or motions without leave of the court and until all outstanding support arrears and costs are paid in full.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing his motion to vary a Mareva injunction and to compel the responding parties to fund his defence to a contempt motion.

The court found that the moving party had repeatedly failed to disclose his assets as ordered, making it impossible to meet the test for varying the injunction or claiming a need for advance funding.

The court concluded that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the underlying orders and no matter of general importance was raised.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The parties sought directions concerning the form of the order following the disposition of an appeal in a defamation action.

The parties disagreed on the scope of issues to be sent back for re-trial.

The Divisional Court agreed with the appellant that the new trial judge should not be bound by the previous trial judge's findings on fair comment, malice, and damages, as the previous judge had been dismissive of the claims.

The court directed that the appellant's draft order be issued, remitting these issues for a full retrial without factual constraints.

The applicant franchisees sought leave to appeal an order that refused to restrain the franchisor from terminating their franchise agreements and granted an injunction restraining the franchisees from continuing to operate.

The court applied the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and no matters of general or public importance, the court denied leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent franchisor.

The moving party dentist sought leave to appeal an order refusing partial summary judgment to dismiss the responding party's claim for damages arising out of an alleged geographic tongue injury.

The moving party argued there was no evidence linking his treatment to the injury.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decision or matter of general importance.

The court noted that the responding party's expert had previously opined that the geographic tongue injury stemmed from the pain following the dental work, creating a genuine issue for trial.

The appellant appealed a trial decision ordering it to pay damages and costs arising from a construction contract dispute.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant was responsible for soffit and dropped ceiling work, finding no palpable and overriding error.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding roof drainage repairs, finding the trial judge's factual findings did not support holding the appellant 50% responsible.

The court also reduced the trial costs award, finding the trial judge erred in principle by awarding a premium over partial indemnity costs.

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario appealed a motion judge's refusal to grant a sealing order for Minutes of Settlement entered into with the respondents in 2001.

The appellant sought to rely on the settlement in its defence of new actions brought by the respondents while preserving its confidentiality.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by failing to recognize settlement privilege as an important interest under the Sierra Club test.

The Court held that the appellant had not waived privilege and that the salutary effects of protecting settlement privilege outweighed the deleterious effects on the open court principle.

The moving parties sought a stay of an order scheduling an election for the Board of Directors of a not-for-profit corporation pending their appeal.

The moving parties, whose memberships were challenged, argued they were improperly excluded from voting.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm in the loss of the right to vote, the balance of convenience strongly favoured allowing the election to proceed.

The corporation had been without an election since 2003 due to protracted litigation, and the potential disenfranchisement of a small number of voters did not outweigh the need for a functioning board.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision refusing to strike the respondent's claim under Rule 21.

The respondent had pleaded the common employer doctrine against a group of corporate defendants and their operator.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the application of the common employer doctrine to operators of a group of common employers is a developing area of law, and it was not plain and obvious the claim would fail.

The court also found the claim was pleaded with sufficient particularity.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an order removing their counsel of record.

The motion judge had removed the plaintiffs' counsel based on an unsworn, un-noticed motion by an individual defendant alleging a conflict of interest, and subsequently refused to consent to the release of the hearing transcript.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the order due to the lack of notice, evidence, and opportunity to be heard, and noting that the issues of right to counsel, natural justice, and access to court transcripts are of fundamental importance to the administration of justice.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing his motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The motion judge had found that there were too many facts in dispute regarding the plaintiff's fitness to return to work to resolve the matter summarily.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the appeal raised issues of public importance beyond the interests of the individual parties.

The appellant appealed an order bifurcating the trial of liability and damages, arguing that bifurcation cannot occur without consent when a valid jury notice exists.

The respondent municipality cross-appealed the motion judge's refusal to strike the jury notice, arguing that section 108 of the Courts of Justice Act prohibits jury trials when a municipality is a party.

The Divisional Court granted leave for the cross-appeal and held that the rules and statute operate to prohibit the filing of a jury notice where a municipality is named.

The court allowed the cross-appeal, set aside the jury notice as a nullity, and consequently dismissed the appellant's appeal regarding bifurcation.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs sued the police for negligence, Charter breaches, and public misfeasance after being victims of a drive-by shooting, alleging the police failed to arrest the known shooter.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding conflicting decisions between two judges on similar pleadings and reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's novel approach to determining police liability.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from an order dismissing his appeal of a Master's order that found him mentally incapable and appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as his litigation guardian.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the previous judge's analysis and conclusions regarding the medical evidence of incapacity.

The plaintiffs, aboriginal persons removed from their homes by Ontario child welfare authorities and placed with non-aboriginal families, brought a proposed class action against Canada for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.

Canada appealed the dismissal of its motion to strike the statement of claim and the certification of the class action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence disclosed no reasonable cause of action, given Canada's unique relationship with aboriginal peoples and its delegation of child welfare responsibilities to Ontario.

The appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to serve and file a notice of appeal from a Small Claims Court decision regarding a disputed legal retainer.

The court applied the four-factor test for extending time to appeal, finding that the appellant formed an intention to appeal in time, the delay was minimal with a reasonable explanation, there was no prejudice to the respondent, and the appeal had sufficient merit.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a motions judge's order that made no award of costs for several motions.

The plaintiffs argued there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision and that it involved issues of general importance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that costs are a quintessential exercise of discretion and the motions judge made no error in principle.

The court also noted that the plaintiffs were seeking an indulgence and that the case did not raise any matters of general importance.

The appellant moved to transfer a residential tenancy appeal from Brampton to Toronto and to expedite the hearing due to the appellant's terminal illness.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing inconvenience and unfairness.

The court granted the motion, finding that the uncontradicted evidence of the appellant's terminal cancer made the transfer and expedition desirable in the interests of justice, and that the respondents failed to demonstrate any resulting unfairness or inconvenience.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her action for unpaid wages against the respondent's corporation.

The trial judge found the claim was statute-barred because the appellant discovered her claim when she quit her employment due to unpaid wages, more than two years before commencing the action.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the limitation period began to run when the appellant quit, not when her employment insurance claim was finalized.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the self-represented respondent.