Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order requiring $4,000,000 from the proceeds of the sale of their property to be paid into court as security for the respondents' damages claim.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal and set aside the order, finding that the motion judge erred in law by applying the general test for an interlocutory injunction rather than the stringent test for a Mareva injunction.

The court held that there was no evidence of a real risk of asset dissipation, no undertaking as to damages was provided, and the alternative argument under Rule 45.02 failed because the respondents sought damages rather than an interest in a specific fund.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 inclusive to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported decision of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of $2,500 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party failed to provide a costs outline.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party failed to provide a costs outline.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal and a motion to stay the orders of the motion judge, which had authorized the release of funds.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and ordered a stay pending appeal, noting that the underlying orders were made under the mistaken belief that the moving parties and the responding bank had been served with the motion in writing.

No further payments are to be made pending the appeal.

The appellants appealed a trial decision awarding the respondent $15,270 in Charter damages for breaches of his s. 10(b) rights during a police detention.

The respondent had previously been granted a stay of criminal proceedings for the same breaches.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge failed to properly apply the Ward test for Charter damages.

The Court held that the stay of proceedings adequately served the functions of vindication and deterrence, and that an award of damages was not an appropriate and just remedy in the circumstances.

The moving party brought an interlocutory motion to add five individuals as co-applicants to her application for judicial review, which challenged the municipality's requirement to install a smart water meter at her property.

She also sought to permit future applicants to be added without leave and to compel the municipality to respond before the next case conference.

The court dismissed the request to add parties, finding the proposed co-applicants lacked private or public interest standing and their addition would needlessly complicate the proceeding.

However, the court granted the request to compel an early response from the municipality to avoid further delay.

The successful appellant on a Small Claims Court appeal sought to settle the terms of the order.

The respondent argued that because the original costs award was under the $3,500 appeal limit set by O. Reg. 626/00, the appellant was still required to pay the $1,600 costs ordered at first instance despite winning the appeal.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, holding that when an appeal is allowed, the costs order below is set aside.

The regulatory appeal limit does not preserve a costs order when the underlying decision is overturned.

The appellant sought to set aside a settlement agreement for statutory accident benefits reached in 2016, arguing he lacked the capacity to enter into the contract.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the appellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption of capacity.

On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding no errors of law in the capacity analysis and concluding the decision was reasonable.

The court also rejected arguments that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by excluding a retrospective expert capacity report.

The appellants appealed an order made at a case conference holding them liable for tax penalties and interest resulting from their oppressive conduct.

They argued the application judge lacked authority to make a substantive order at a case conference and denied them procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court held that Rule 50.13(6) permits judges to issue directions, including substantive orders, at case conferences in appropriate circumstances to promote efficiency.

The court found no procedural unfairness, as the appellants were informed of the conference's purpose and had the opportunity to submit materials.

The appeal was allowed in part only to correct an agreed-upon calculation error.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that apportioned 35% liability to them for a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The respondent had rear-ended the appellants' vehicle after it allegedly stopped suddenly.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge made a palpable and overriding factual error by conflating the parties' evidence, leading to an unwarranted adverse credibility finding against the appellants.

Furthermore, the trial judge erred in law by failing to apply the presumption of negligence against the rear driver, as a sudden stop within a lane of traffic does not constitute an unusual circumstance sufficient to rebut the reverse onus.

The appeal was allowed, and the respondent was found 100% liable.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated March 28, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $2,500 all inclusive.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of Centa J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay agreed costs of $4,000 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of McGee J. dated March 6, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding parties did not provide a costs outline.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding the failure to return a cat.

The respondents sought to dismiss the appeal under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and due to delay.

The appellant moved for an extension of time to perfect the appeal, citing financial inability to pay for transcripts.

The Divisional Court declined to dismiss the appeal under Rule 2.1 and granted an extension of time to perfect the appeal, though for a shorter period than the one year requested by the appellant.

The respondents moved to quash the appellant's appeal from an order striking his statement of claim, which sought $6 million in damages.

The respondents argued the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was out of time.

The court granted the motion to quash, finding that under the Courts of Justice Act, appeals from final orders where the claim exceeds $50,000 must be brought to the Court of Appeal.

The court also noted the appeal was late, as time runs from the date reasons are signed, not when the order is issued, though it would have granted an extension had it possessed jurisdiction.

The moving party sought leave to appeal and a stay of a paragraph of a lower court order.

The Divisional Court granted both leave to appeal and the stay, awarding costs of $2,500 to the moving party.

The parties were directed to schedule a case management conference and consider whether the appeal might become moot pending a motion to vary.

The moving party was successful on a motion to stay the discharge of its construction lien pending appeal and sought costs of $20,000.

The responding party argued costs should be reserved to the appeal panel or fixed at $5,000.

The Divisional Court fixed costs at $9,000 in favour of the moving party, finding its claimed costs disproportionate for a straightforward stay motion.

The payment of costs was stayed pending the determination of the appeal.