Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The moving party sought leave to appeal a 2019 order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party did not file materials and the Public Guardian and Trustee did not seek costs, no costs were ordered.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of McEwen J. dated January 5, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The court declined to award costs to the successful responding parties because they failed to file a Costs Outline.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Sheard J. dated January 10, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed at $7,500.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dated November 29, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party failed to file a Costs Outline, the court made no order as to costs.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review of a decision by the OIPRD not to investigate allegations of police misconduct.

After repeatedly failing to provide meaningful grounds for review and attempting to relitigate a previously dismissed complaint, the court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.

The applicant responded with incoherent and vexatious motions, refusing to comply with court directions.

The court dismissed the application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and ordered that the applicant may not commence further proceedings in the Divisional Court without prior judicial permission.

The respondent brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order and sought to adduce fresh evidence on the motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it did not satisfy the Palmer test as it was not relevant to the test for granting leave to appeal.

The motion for leave to appeal and requests for ancillary relief were also dismissed.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the respondent employee damages for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in finding the respondent made reasonable efforts to mitigate, alleging she fabricated records of online job applications.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to meet its onus to prove a failure to mitigate or fabrication of evidence.

The court also upheld the motion judge's determination that summary judgment was appropriate.

The appellant appealed a decision and was partially successful, achieving a $1,000 reduction in damages, but the respondent succeeded on the main issue of liability.

The respondent had also made offers to settle that would have significantly reduced the amount paid by the appellant.

The court awarded costs of the appeal to the respondent in the amount of $6,000, which was the amount proposed by the appellant.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Morgan J. dated February 24, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the plaintiffs to pay costs of $10,000 all-inclusive to the responding defendants.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dated December 19, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing and awarded costs of $10,000 inclusive to the responding party.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 3, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs payable to the respondent in the all-inclusive amount of $2,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $1,000 to the Homewood defendants and $1,000 to the defendant doctor.

The moving parties, Canada School of Public Service and Pierre Leduc, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Hackland J. dated December 1, 2022.

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

The moving party, a not-for-profit corporation, sought an urgent stay of an application judge's order prescribing the process for determining membership and voting rights for an upcoming annual general meeting, pending an appeal.

The Divisional Court applied the three-part test for a stay pending appeal.

Finding that the appeal raised a serious issue, that there was potential for irreparable harm due to the history of disruption at previous meetings, and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay given the expedited appeal date, the court granted the stay.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal Small Claims Court decisions finding him liable for a 1996 government business loan.

Although the moving party failed to demonstrate an intention to appeal within the time limit and provided a weak explanation for the significant delay, the court found the appeal had potential merit regarding whether the Crown, as an assignee of the debt, could avoid the limitation period that would have applied to the original private lender.

Given the lack of prejudice to the respondent, who waited 23 years to commence the action, the court granted the extension of time to appeal.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Glustein J. dated August 8, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties were ordered to pay $5,000 in all-inclusive costs to the responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court dated March 28, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay $5,000 in all-inclusive costs to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Petersen J. dated May 25, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay $5,000 in all-inclusive costs to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 25, 2021.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing and awarded all-inclusive costs of $5,000 to the responding party, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario.