Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing, awarding costs of $10,000 to the responding parties other than one specific respondent.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Regional Senior Justice MacLeod dated December 6, 2022.

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

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' appeal from the dismissal of their certification motions in two proposed class actions, the parties consensually resolved the issue of costs.

The Divisional Court ordered costs payable by the plaintiffs/appellants to the various defendants/respondents in the total amount of $92,500, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The moving parties, Eliezer Karp and DJD Law Professional Corporation, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of A.P. Ramsay J. dated November 21, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As neither party uploaded costs outlines or bills of costs, no costs were ordered.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court decision that granted the respondent's second motion to set aside a 2006 default judgment.

The respondent's first motion to set aside the judgment had been dismissed in 2017, a decision upheld on appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the issue of territorial jurisdiction raised in the second motion was res judicata.

The deputy judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the second motion, which amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on a final decision.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 26, 2022.

The Divisional Court reviewed the written materials submitted by the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.

The moving party, Juan Guillermo Gutierrez, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of McEwen J. dated December 1, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party, the Receiver, fixed at $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order and a motion to strike or file further evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions and ordered the moving party to pay costs fixed at $10,000.

The appellant car dealership appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $20,179 in damages for misrepresenting the condition of a used vehicle that had previously been designated a 'lemon'.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings on liability and the damages for financing and repair costs, finding no palpable and overriding error.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the $1,000 award for mental stress, as there was no medical evidence to support it.

The moving parties, Societe Air France and Air France-KLM Group, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Pollak J. dated July 8, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded 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 17, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded because the responding party failed to file a Costs Outline.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 18, 2022.

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

The moving party sought an extension of time to commence an application for judicial review of a decision by the Law Society of Ontario's Complaints Review Commissioner, filed eight months after the decision.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no apparent grounds for relief as the proposed application did not challenge the reasonableness of the Commissioner's decision but rather attempted to collaterally attack a separate disciplinary finding by another regulatory college.

The court also found that granting the extension would cause prejudice to the affected licensee and constituted an abuse of process.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her entitlement to attendant care benefits following a catastrophic motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the alleged errors were questions of mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law, and that the appellant failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court also declined to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review application, as the case did not present exceptional circumstances.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 30, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded partial indemnity costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $3,000.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $15,000 payable by the applicant to the respondent, to be netted against a prior costs award.

The court also extended the interim relief previously ordered until the end of the day.

The proposed intervenor brought a motion seeking leave to intervene as an added party in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application challenged the Ministry of Energy's conclusion that the duty to consult regarding a pipeline replacement project was satisfied.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed intervenor had a direct interest in the proceeding, could be adversely affected by the judgment, and shared common questions of law and fact with a parallel appeal.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying him statutory accident benefits after he fell from the roof of his camper trailer while cleaning it.

The Adjudicator had found the incident did not meet the causation test for an 'accident' because there was no evidence the appellant tripped on the trailer or that the trailer directly caused the fall.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Adjudicator erred in law by requiring direct physical contact with the vehicle to establish causation.

The court found that falling from the trailer while inspecting it was a normal incident of the risk created by its use, satisfying the definition of an accident under the Schedule.

The appellant defendant appealed a Master's order dismissing his motion to stay the action on the basis of forum non conveniens, arguing that Zambia was the appropriate forum.

The Divisional Court first determined that the standard of review for a Master's final discretionary order is one of deference, not correctness.

Applying this standard, the court upheld the Master's findings that the appellant had attorned to Ontario's jurisdiction by filing a statement of defence and counterclaim, that Ontario had a real and substantial connection to the conspiracy claims, and that the appellant failed to clearly establish that Zambia was the more appropriate forum.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order regarding a solicitor conflict of interest.

Leave to appeal was granted on a narrow issue regarding remedy.

The appellants conceded that if the appeal was limited to this single issue—specifically, whether precautionary measures could be put in place after the fact, without arguing that the presumption of receipt of privileged information did not apply—the appeal could not succeed.

The Divisional Court held that the appeal was limited to the narrow ground on which leave was granted and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.