Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The appellants appealed a motion judge's refusal to stay a civil action.

The appellants argued the respondent breached the common law implied undertaking rule by using documents disclosed in an Ontario Labour Relations Board proceeding to initiate the civil action.

The Divisional Court held that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not supplant the common law implied undertaking for administrative proceedings, and found that the respondent breached the undertaking.

However, because the appellants suffered no prejudice, the court declined to stay the action and instead ordered substantial indemnity costs against the respondent.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Penny J. dated January 8, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outline was filed, the court ordered no costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Vermette J. dated December 15, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion.

As no costs outline was submitted, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a prior order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outline was submitted, the court made no order as to costs.

A case conference was held to schedule a motion to extend the time for an application for judicial review regarding a development settlement.

The applicant sought procedural orders, including that the respondent pay for the cross-examination of its witness or that the examination be deferred to the hearing, and that the respondent deliver its factum early.

The court dismissed these requests, ordering that cross-examinations and factum delivery proceed in the ordinary course under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also noted the corporate applicant requires leave to be represented by its member, who is a lawyer.

The appellant's employment was terminated in 2008, and an arbitration board later awarded her compensation.

A dispute arose over whether the employer complied with her direction to pay the funds into her Registered Pension Plan.

In 2013, a judge dismissed her application to compel the employer to do so.

The appellant appealed, but the appeal sat dormant for over ten years.

The parties recently realized the Divisional Court lacks monetary jurisdiction.

The court provided directions for the appellant to bring a motion under s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act to transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal, and denied her request to add new claims of discrimination to the appeal.

The applicant delivered a subpoena seeking documents from the respondent.

The respondent objected to producing certain documents, claiming lawyer-client privilege.

The applicant brought an application by way of stated case under s. 33 of the Public Inquiries Act, 2009 to determine whether the documents are producible or privileged.

The court issued procedural directions, including a schedule for evidence, cross-examinations, and factums, and directed that the matter be heard by a single judge of the Divisional Court.

The applicant brought an application in the Divisional Court.

On consent, the application was discontinued without costs so that the applicant could bring its proposed proceeding in the Superior Court of Justice.

The order was made without prejudice to the parties' rights to contest the validity of the proposed claim.

The appellants sought an adjournment of the appeal hearing on the basis of illness and a recent change in counsel.

The respondent initially opposed the adjournment.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment but directed that the appeal proceed in writing, with a timetable for further submissions.

The court also refused to permit the appellants to file new evidentiary material, noting a lack of diligence in pursuing its admission.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering them to pay $160,171.70 in quantum meruit for cottage renovation work and $256,163.05 in substantial indemnity costs.

The appellants argued the remediation work was a fixed-price contract and that quantum meruit should not apply to customized goods left in the contractor's warehouse after the appellants terminated the project.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the contract was not fixed-price and that the contractor was entitled to reimbursement for the customized goods.

The substantial indemnity costs award was upheld due to the appellants' unproven and aggressively maintained allegations of fraud.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court order and requested leave to provide fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court granted leave to provide the fresh evidence and considered it, but ultimately dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $1,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The moving parties, the Attorney General of Canada and others, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Morgan J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal an order dated October 31, 2023.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 21, 2023.

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

The appellant, a firefighter who responded to the 2018 Toronto van attack, sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments resulting from witnessing the aftermath.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the claim, finding the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because the rental van was used as a weapon and the firetruck did not directly cause the injuries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicator made no error of law in applying the purpose and causation tests, and rejected the appellant's Charter argument regarding discrimination against mental injuries.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering her to repay $29,570.92 in income replacement and attendant care benefits to the respondent insurer due to fraudulent misrepresentation.

The appellant argued the adjudicator erred in applying section 52 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule to the evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the application of legal principles to evidence is a question of mixed fact and law, and therefore not subject to appeal under section 11(6) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, which limits appeals to questions of law only.

The moving party sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal three interlocutory orders that set aside a noting in default and struck his pleadings with leave to amend.

The court applied the test for extending time, focusing on the justice of the case.

The court found that the proposed appeal lacked merit, as the motion judge's discretionary decisions were entitled to deference and did not raise issues of broader importance.

The motion was dismissed to avoid further delay in the underlying family law proceeding, and costs were awarded to the responding party.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for leave to apply for judicial review under the Construction Act, the parties could not agree on costs.

The respondent sought $13,803.13, while the applicant argued for no costs or $1,500 to $2,000.

The court found the respondent's claimed time excessive given their argument that the motion was doomed to fail based on established case law.

Applying the principles from Boucher, the court fixed costs payable by the applicant to the respondent at $5,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The appellant, a board member of a not-for-profit anti-hate organization, sued the respondents for defamation over two tweets that criticized the organization but did not name him.

The Small Claims Court dismissed the action, finding the appellant failed to prove the tweets would lead a reasonable person to believe they referred to him.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the decision, concluding the trial judge applied the correct legal test.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, confirming that the impugned words were not reasonably understood to refer to the appellant.

The appellant brought a motion in writing for an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal three decisions of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting that reasons and a decision on costs would follow in a subsequent endorsement.