Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

Following a successful appeal, the appellants sought costs of $42,000 and $15,000 to $22,500 respectively.

The respondents argued the claims were excessive.

The Divisional Court considered the complexity of the Human Rights Code issues and the unusual circumstance of the Tribunal accidentally losing the record, which increased preparation time.

However, noting the similarity of interests between the two appellants and the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable to the losing party, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale of $10,000 to each appellant.

The respondents sought costs of $30,497.12 after successfully defending an application brought by the self-represented applicant.

The applicant argued that no costs should be payable because the application raised an important public issue regarding the electoral system and the respondents had failed to respond to settlement offers.

The court declined to award costs to the respondents, finding that the application was necessary despite being unsuccessful, and noting the respondents' failure to engage in settlement discussions.

The defendant appealed an order dismissing its motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs sued the provincial government in negligence after the deceased contracted West Nile Virus, alleging the government failed to reasonably implement its prevention plan.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that it was not plain and obvious the claim would fail, as the relevant public health legislation conferred sufficient powers on the government to potentially ground a private law duty of care at the operational level.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant sought costs of approximately $8,900 for an appeal and a leave motion regarding the timing of payment of costs ordered by the Court of Appeal.

The Divisional Court noted that the appeal was brought for strategic purposes to force the respondents to pay costs before trial or forfeit their right to proceed.

Finding that the appeal was entirely unnecessary from any other perspective, the court declined to award costs to any party.

The appellant abandoned an appeal from an interlocutory order of the Small Claims Court, which is not permitted under section 31 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondents sought costs for the abandoned appeal.

The court found the appeal was a stalling tactic with no legal basis and awarded the respondents costs of $1,687.57 for legal advice and $300.00 for attendance.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding no just cause for the respondent's termination and extending the notice period by two months.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of no just cause, as the appellant failed to show the trial judge was clearly wrong.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the judgment amount by one-third because the trial judge erred in extending the notice period without evidence that the termination prolonged or aggravated the respondent's depression.

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their motion to certify a class proceeding against the provincial government.

The action alleged negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance in public office arising from the government's decision to discontinue entering into Special Needs Agreements for profoundly disabled children.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in concluding it was plain and obvious the negligence claim could not succeed.

The court held that the statement of claim disclosed arguable causes of action and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

The defendant appealed a Master's order permitting two of the four plaintiffs to discontinue their action.

The plaintiffs had alleged that the defendant stole $180,000 from their safety deposit box.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the Master was clearly wrong and misapprehended the evidence.

Permitting the discontinuance halfway through examinations for discovery caused real prejudice to the defendant, who would lose the right to examine the discontinuing plaintiffs on their pleadings and lose two potential sources for costs recovery in an action where he was accused of theft.

The appellant, a self-represented litigant assisted by an agent, appealed the dismissal of her Small Claims Court action against her brokerage firm regarding a margin call.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge's constant interventions, antagonistic attitude toward the agent, refusal to permit cross-examination of adverse witnesses, and premature declaration of a non-suit without hearing submissions deprived the appellant of a fair trial.

The applicant brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of a judgment pending appeal.

The parties consented to adjourn the motion but disagreed on the costs of the adjournment.

The respondents sought over $63,000 in costs incurred investigating the applicant's transfer of assets to family members, which allegedly rendered him judgment-proof.

The court fixed the costs of the adjournment at $20,000 payable forthwith by the applicant.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the court considered written submissions on costs.

The court declined to award costs to the successful respondent co-operative, citing the appellant's difficult financial circumstances and the respondent's failure to cooperate with the City to enable the appellant to obtain a housing subsidy.

The court also rejected the respondent's request for costs against the appellant's solicitor personally.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant doctor brought a motion before the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside or vary a motions judge's order.

The motions judge had dismissed the applicant's entire judicial review application, even though only a motion for an injunction and mandatory order regarding a College investigation was before him.

The Divisional Court agreed that the motions judge was correct to refuse the injunction and mandatory order, but amended the formal order to clarify that only the motion, not the underlying judicial review application, was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a judgment finding them liable for corporate oppression and ordering them to pay $1,075,000 to the respondent.

The application judge found that the individual appellant stripped the corporate appellant of profits from a property sale to purchase another property, defeating the respondent's ability to collect on a prior judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's conclusion that the conduct was oppressive, and upholding the remedy and substantial indemnity costs award.

The respondent tripped and fell on a city sidewalk, sustaining a shoulder injury.

She commenced an action against the city six months later, beyond the three-month limitation period in the Municipal Act.

The motion judge dismissed the city's motion for summary judgment, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding when the respondent discovered the severity of her injury.

On appeal, the Divisional Court reversed the decision, holding that the limitation period begins when the plaintiff knows some damage has occurred, not when the full extent of the injury is diagnosed.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The applicants, former foster parents, brought a motion to admit several affidavits on their judicial review application.

The respondents filed responding and reply affidavits.

The Divisional Court noted that the indiscriminate filing of affidavits likely offended the rule in Keeprite, but concluded it was not feasible to parse the inextricably woven evidence paragraph by paragraph.

The court admitted all affidavits, except for a portion of one affidavit that the applicants agreed to strike, noting it would separate the wheat from the chaff during the hearing.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision certifying a class action regarding allegedly defective Silzone-coated mechanical heart valves.

The defendants also sought leave to appeal an evidentiary ruling regarding expert affidavits filed in support of certification.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification order.

The court held that the common issues, including the defendants' standard of care and the risks associated with the product, were appropriate for a class proceeding.

Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review seeking to quash or adjourn the commencement date of a coroner's inquest, the court determined the issue of costs.

The respondent coroner and the family of the deceased sought costs against the applicant and his employer, a ski club.

The court found the claimed costs excessive but ordered the applicant and the ski club to jointly and severally pay fixed costs of $7,500 to the coroner and $2,500 to the family.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision refusing to bifurcate a personal injury trial where a jury notice was outstanding.

The motion judge found that there were conflicting decisions on whether bifurcation could be ordered in the face of an outstanding jury notice, specifically noting a conflict between the lower court's decision and Morniga v. State Farm.

Finding the issue to be of general importance to the personal injury bar and the administration of justice, the court granted leave to appeal.

The respondent brought a motion before a single judge of the Divisional Court to quash the applicant's appeal on the grounds of mootness and estoppel.

The underlying appeal concerned the applicant's standing to challenge the respondent's election to satisfy debenture obligations by issuing shares.

The single judge concluded that the issues raised on the motion to quash were intertwined with the merits of the appeal and potential prejudice to the parties.

Pursuant to section 21(4) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 61.16(2.1), the judge adjourned the motion to be heard by the full panel of the Divisional Court hearing the appeal.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering them to pay $3,745 in unpaid accounting fees to the respondent.

The dispute centered on the scope of the respondent's retainer and whether he was authorized to investigate a tax issue discovered during his review of reorganization documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly accepted the respondent's evidence regarding the scope of the professional retainer and that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred.