Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The appellants appealed an associate judge's order dismissing their action for delay at a status hearing under Rule 48.14.

The delay was primarily caused by the appellants' trial counsel inadvertently missing the mandatory mediation requirement, which prevented the filing of the trial record before the five-year deadline.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the associate judge committed palpable and overriding error by treating the missed mediation as a mere technical misstep and failing to consider the overall justice of the case, especially given the lack of prejudice to the respondents and the fact that the action was brought to enforce a $12,000,000 default judgment.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Pollak J. dated November 22, 2021.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

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

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

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding $10,000 in defamation damages to the respondent seniors' residence.

The appellant had published an article on his blog alleging financial irregularities, fraud, and elder abuse at the residence.

The trial judge found the statements about elder abuse were defamatory and not protected by the defences of justification, fair comment, or responsible communication on a matter of public interest.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of the defamation defences.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the all-inclusive amount of $1,500.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a costs order made by Shaw J. on September 14, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 all-inclusive to the responding party.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the order of Gilmore J. dated November 18, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing, awarding costs to the responding parties in the all-inclusive amount of $7,500.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment determining his net entitlement to insurance proceeds following a house fire.

The trial judge had allowed the insurer to set off an overpayment for the house's replacement cost against the appellant's damages for contents, despite the insurer failing to plead set-off as an affirmative defence.

The Divisional Court held that the trial judge erred in law by allowing the unpleaded set-off, as it caused trial unfairness and prejudiced the appellant's litigation and settlement strategy.

The appeal was allowed in part to set aside the set-off, but dismissed regarding the trial judge's factual findings on artwork valuation and additional living expenses.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order for a debt owed to the respondent bank, arguing he received the motion materials only 14 days before the hearing, leaving insufficient time to prepare or retain counsel.

The appellant failed to perfect the appeal or attend the hearing.

The Divisional Court found no evidence that the appellant had requested an adjournment or attempted to retain counsel, and held that 14 days was not an unreasonable timeframe to prepare.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant contractor appealed a summary judgment decision enforcing a stipulated remedy in a mediated settlement agreement.

The settlement required the appellant to remediate construction deficiencies by a deadline, failing which $30,000 held in court would be forfeited to the respondent.

The motion judge found the appellant failed to remediate the deficiencies and declined to grant relief from forfeiture.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's characterization of the clause as a forfeiture rather than a penalty, nor in her conclusion that enforcing the forfeiture was not unconscionable.

The appellant sought to appeal a Superior Court decision denying him leave to appeal a family law arbitration award.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appeal, arguing there is no right to appeal a denial of leave.

The Divisional Court reviewed conflicting jurisprudence and followed the general rule that an order refusing leave to appeal is not appealable, except in narrow circumstances where a judge mistakenly declines jurisdiction.

As the appellant did not allege the judge declined jurisdiction, the notice of appeal was quashed.

The respondent doctor brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal an order granting the Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) intervenor status in a judicial review application.

The underlying application concerned a regulatory decision regarding the doctor's access to a former patient's medical records.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time, finding the short delay was reasonably explained by counsel's inadvertence.

On the merits, the court set aside the intervenor order, concluding that OTLA's proposed submissions would be duplicative of the applicant's and that the matter was primarily a private regulatory dispute.

The self-represented appellant's appeals were dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The appellant had previously been given notice that the court was considering dismissing his appeals because the underlying order had already been set aside.

Following abusive communications from the appellant, the court issued the formal dismissal order and directed that any future communications from the appellant be vetted by an administrative judge to protect court staff.

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 to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.

The defendants and plaintiffs both brought motions for leave to appeal an order regarding the admissibility of evidence in a civil contempt proceeding.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on four issues concerning the application of sections 7 and 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to evidence compelled pursuant to a Mareva order and undertakings.

The court directed that the defendant be the appellant and the plaintiffs be the cross-appellants.

The Attorney General for Canada sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order certifying a class action against the Crown regarding allegedly defective medical implants.

The Crown argued that the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action for regulatory negligence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave, finding no conflicting decisions on the matter and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification judge's application of the Anns test for duty of care.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order setting aside a default judgment against four defendants.

The plaintiff argued there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision, alleging the motions judge failed to find an arguable defence, ignored false affidavits, and provided inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the motions judge applied the correct legal principles and provided sufficient reasons for the limited purpose of setting aside a default judgment.

The court also held the issues were specific to the parties and not of general importance to warrant leave to appeal.

The motion was dismissed without costs due to the defendants' lack of diligence.

The defendants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment that rescinded a home renovation contract and dismissed their counterclaim.

The trial judge found the contract for a sunroom addition voidable for non-compliance with the Consumer Protection Act and rescinded it due to unfair practices.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the law and made no palpable and overriding error of fact regarding the contract or the dismissal of the defendants' counterclaim for unjust enrichment.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision that dismissed their motion to amend their statement of defence and granted the respondent's cross-motion for judgment based on minutes of settlement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred by hearing the final cross-motion before the interlocutory motion to amend.

The Court also held that the Master applied the incorrect test under Rule 26 by reversing the onus, as the opposing party must prove non-compensable prejudice to defeat a motion to amend.

The appellant law firm appealed an order dismissing its motion for a declaration that certain bank accounts in the respondent's name were held in trust for the appellant, and for a garnishment order.

The Divisional Court found that the motions judge erred in applying the doctrine of res judicata, as the trust claim was not part of the earlier proceedings regarding personal liability.

However, the appeal was dismissed because garnishment under Rule 60.08 was not the proper procedure to resolve a disputed trust relationship.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the appellant commencing a separate action.

Leave to appeal costs was granted, and the costs order was varied to a partial indemnity basis.