Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The self-represented applicant, who is incarcerated, sought an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that dismissed his motion for default judgment against his former lawyer due to improper service.

The court applied the test for extending time and found that while the applicant formed the intention to appeal in time, the proposed appeal lacked merit as it did not meet the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4).

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Regional Senior Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were fixed in the amount of $2,500 and awarded to the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 7, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $3,000.

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of claim as frivolous and vexatious.

The respondent requested the appeal be summarily dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Divisional Court found it lacked jurisdiction under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act because the total amount claimed in the dismissed action exceeded $50,000.

Furthermore, the court found the appeal was clearly frivolous and vexatious given the appellant's history of litigation and the findings of the lower court.

The appeal was permanently stayed with no costs awarded.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dismissing a motion for findings of contempt and granting various temporary orders.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1, noting that the dismissal of contempt allegations is a final order within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal.

The moving party accepted this characterization and failed to identify any interlocutory issues for appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and declined to transfer the matter to the Court of Appeal due to a lack of merit.

The appellants appealed an associate judge's order dismissing their motion to vary a timetable and dismissing their counterclaim for delay.

The associate judge had previously granted a final, peremptory extension to set the action down for trial, which the appellants failed to meet.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the associate judge's factual findings that the appellants engaged in a pattern of conduct that delayed the proceedings and lacked a reasonable explanation for failing to comply with the peremptory deadline.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The moving party brought a motion to adduce six items of additional evidence in her application for judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD).

The underlying application concerned the OIPRD's review of a police conduct complaint regarding an allegedly unlawful arrest for criminal harassment.

The Divisional Court applied the Keeprite principles for admitting new evidence on judicial review.

The court allowed the motion in part, admitting two documents that were potentially relevant to the issues on review, while excluding four documents that were either irrelevant or already in the record.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Penny J. dated January 28, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 4, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as no costs outlines were provided.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal and the motion for leave to appeal itself.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the underlying order.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dated December 17, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were filed by the parties, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Speyer J. dated October 29, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $2,825.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to certify her class proceeding for breach of fiduciary duty against her investment advisors.

The appellant argued that the advisors' professional rules and codes of ethics established a fiduciary relationship on a class-wide basis.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an ad hoc fiduciary duty between a financial advisor and a client requires a multi-factor, case-by-case analysis, and cannot be established solely based on professional rules and ethical codes.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion for certification of a class proceeding arising from a data breach involving the respondents and Cambridge Analytica.

The motion judge had denied certification on the basis that there was no evidence that Canadian users' data had actually been shared with Cambridge Analytica, failing the common issues requirement under the Class Proceedings Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge properly applied the certification test, did not require the appellant to prove loss at the certification stage, and made no palpable and overriding error in his assessment of the evidence or interpretation of the carriage orders.

The appellant owner appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent construction manager its share of cost savings under a construction management contract.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in her interpretation of the contract, her refusal to strike an affidavit, and her finding that the cost savings were lienable under the Construction Lien Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's contractual interpretation or her conclusion that cost savings constitute a lienable service.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two orders of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs payable to the responding party at $2,500.

The appellant tenant sought an adjournment of his appeal from a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment peremptory to the appellant, setting strict deadlines for perfecting the appeal and filing materials.

The court ordered that if the appellant fails to perfect the appeal by the deadline or is more than one day late in paying monthly rent, the respondent landlord may bring an ex parte motion to quash the appeal.

No costs were awarded for the appearance.

The moving parties, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and Joel Breault, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Croll J. dated September 24, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were fixed at $2,500 for the Landry plaintiffs and $2,500 for the Davies defendants, payable by the moving parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of MacNeil J. dated November 16, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $7,217.88.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.