Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision granting the responding party leave to commence an action under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, identifying specific questions regarding whether the motions judge erred in holding that the Court of Appeal erred in a previous decision, and whether such an error rendered the decision unsafe.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $20,000, payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The moving party, a lawyer whose licence was revoked by the Law Society Tribunal for professional misconduct, brought a motion for a stay of the revocation pending his appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay.

While the grounds of appeal were not strong, they were not frivolous.

The court found the moving party would suffer irreparable financial harm and that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, particularly given his current practice focusing on pro bono and contingency work for the Black community.

The motion for a stay was granted.

The appellant, a former bank executive, appealed a decision dismissing his motion to amend his wrongful dismissal statement of claim.

He sought to add a $10 million claim for unjust enrichment and disgorgement, arguing the employer profited from retaining his unpaid compensation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the proposed amendment legally untenable.

The court held there was no corresponding deprivation to the employer's enrichment, as the appellant's loss was limited to the time value of money, which is adequately addressed by the interest provisions in the Courts of Justice Act.

The moving party brought motions for leave to appeal two interlocutory decisions.

The respondents requested that the motions be dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal the scheduling decision, finding it was moot and sought unavailable relief.

However, the court declined to dismiss the motion for leave to appeal the decision denying leave to examine witnesses, as the primary relief sought was not challenged under the Rule 2.1 process.

The moving parties, class action plaintiffs, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Glustein J. dated December 6, 2022.

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

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Centa J. dated April 17, 2023.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Braid J. dated June 16, 2023.

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

The mother brought a motion for security for costs regarding the father's appeal of a final family law order and costs order.

The father, who resides in the United States, had no assets in Ontario and the court found good reason to believe his appeal lacked merit.

Applying the two-stage analysis under Rule 61.06(1), the court balanced the father's expenses in exercising parenting time against the mother's need for protection from costs.

The court ordered the father to post $15,000 as security for costs of the appeal.

The plaintiffs moved for judgment to enforce a settlement agreement reached at a pre-trial conference.

The defendants argued the agreement was only 'in principle' because essential terms, such as the timing of payment and the specific terms of the release, were not finalized.

The court found that the parties had a mutual intention to create a binding contract and that the missing terms were non-essential.

The court implied a reasonable period for payment and standard release terms, granting judgment to enforce the $1.65 million settlement.

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.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent, payable within 30 days.

The moving party, a lumber supplier, sought an extension of time to commence an appeal to the Divisional Court from an order regarding the preservation of funds under Rule 45.02 and the Construction Lien Act.

The moving party had initially appealed to the Court of Appeal, which quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time, finding that the moving party had a bona fide intention to appeal, provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, caused no prejudice to the respondents, and raised arguable questions of law on the merits.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of McSweeney J. dated May 31, 2023.

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

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated May 24, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal with costs of $5,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The court also amended previous orders to state that the order will cease to have effect if the defendant pays the Canadian dollar equivalent of €3,266,122.45 into court as security.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated July 4, 2023.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of McGee J. dated May 25, 2023.

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

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their appeal of a solicitor's account assessment.

They argued the appeal judge denied them procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment, muting one of the appellants during a virtual hearing, and proceeding without full transcripts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the judge properly exercised his discretion to refuse the adjournment and to control the court's process by muting a disruptive litigant.

The court also upheld the assessment officer's findings and the award of substantial indemnity costs against the appellants.

The respondent in a family law appeal brought a motion for security for costs against the appellant.

The court determined that the Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than the Family Law Rules, governed the motion.

Applying Rule 61.06(1), the court found that the appellant resided outside Ontario, had unpaid costs awards, and likely had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The court ordered the appellant to pay $68,631.32 in outstanding costs and post $25,000 as security for the appeal costs, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.

The moving party, an adjudicative tribunal, brought a motion seeking leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of one of its own decisions regarding property assessment.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing the tribunal lacked a statutory right to appear and its participation threatened tribunal impartiality.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, applying the established factors for tribunal intervention.

The court found that the tribunal could provide useful context regarding its statutory and procedural framework without engaging in the merits of the appeal or compromising its impartiality.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment entered against them after they failed to attend a virtual trial.

The appellants had requested an adjournment, citing a desire for an in-person trial and their agent's presence in Florida, which the trial judge refused.

The Divisional Court found no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion to refuse the adjournment, noting the appellants' reasons were illogical and lacked detail.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a Master's order dismissing her motion to add two snow removal contractors as defendants after the expiry of the limitation period.

The appellant argued misnomer and discoverability.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's findings that the statement of claim did not point the 'litigation finger' at the sidewalk contractor, as it only alleged injuries from a fall on the roadway.

The Court also upheld the finding that the appellant failed to exercise reasonable diligence to identify the contractors within the limitation period.

The appeal was dismissed.