Civil Litigation - Defendant - ODC

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying certain statutory accident benefits.

The Divisional Court found that the LAT adjudicator denied the appellant procedural fairness by unilaterally separating her hearing from her mother's, drastically reducing the scheduled hearing time without adequate notice, and refusing to allow cross-examination of the respondent's occupational therapist whose report had been materially altered by an assessment company.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The defendant, Wrestling Canada Lutte, appealed a motion judge's decision declining to strike a breach of contract claim brought by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendant breached a dispute resolution clause by failing to engage in dispute resolution before terminating their independent contractor agreement without cause.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that a valid without-cause termination does not constitute a 'dispute' under the contract.

Because the contract was validly terminated and no dispute had been referred to arbitration prior to termination, the dispute resolution clause was not triggered.

The statement of claim was struck in its entirety.

The moving parties brought a motion for mandamus and related relief in the context of an ongoing landlord and tenant appeal.

The Divisional Court struck out the motion as an abuse of process, noting the moving parties' stream of vexatious attacks on scheduling orders.

The court ordered that the moving parties are foreclosed from bringing any further motions or proceedings in the court without prior permission from the case management judge.

The moving party, 2B Developments, sought an order staying the trial judge's final order which dismissed its action, discharged its construction lien, and awarded damages to the respondent.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Divisional Court found that the appeal raised serious issues to be tried, including procedural fairness and the trial judge's finding of fraud.

The court held that 2B would suffer irreparable harm if the stay were refused because the discharge of a construction lien is irrevocable, resulting in the permanent loss of a statutory right.

Finding the balance of convenience favoured 2B, the court granted the motion to stay the discharge of the lien pending appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated September 25, 2023.

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

The moving party brought two motions: one to appoint a litigation guardian and another for an extension of time to appeal a trial decision.

The court granted the motion to appoint the moving party's common law spouse as litigation guardian, finding the requirements of Rule 7 were met.

The court also granted the extension of time to appeal on terms, noting the delay was largely explained by the self-represented moving party mistakenly filing the appeal in the Court of Appeal instead of the Divisional Court, and finding no real prejudice to the responding party.

A child rights organization brought a motion for leave to intervene in a judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The underlying complaint alleged a doctor improperly conducted a genital examination on an Indigenous child without appropriate consent.

The court granted leave to intervene, finding the organization would provide a useful and different perspective on the rights of the child and their intersecting vulnerabilities, and that the case raised issues of public importance beyond a private dispute.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Dubé J. dated October 11, 2023.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The appellants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Perell J. dated December 28, 2023.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court dated September 11, 2023.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the self-represented moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of Kaufman J. The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding plaintiffs in the fixed amount of $5,000 all-inclusive.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against the manufacturers of the prescription drug Celexa.

The proposed class action alleged a failure to warn that the drug is or may be a teratogen causing congenital malformations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Class Proceedings Judge's findings that the proposed common issues lacked sufficient commonality due to the hundreds of potential congenital malformations with unique etiologies, and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because individual issues would overwhelm any common issues.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 5, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $6,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 11, 2023.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of S.T. Bale J. dated September 2, 2023.

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

The appellants appealed a decision granting the respondent's application for the return of a deposit after she terminated an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property due to a registered easement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge committed a palpable and overriding error in concluding that the purchase agreement did not provide sufficient notice of the easement.

The agreement specifically referenced the easement in the legal description and the respondent failed to establish that the easement did not fall within the exception for minor utility easements.

The matter was returned to the application judge to determine damages.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their claim for property damage allegedly caused by water discharging from their neighbours' sump pump.

The trial judge found the appellants failed to prove causation on a balance of probabilities and noted other possible causes for the minor lawn indentation and concrete cracks.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate and there was no palpable and overriding error in her factual findings.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for statutory accident benefits due to her failure to provide a reasonable explanation for notifying the insurer outside the prescribed timelines.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider the appellant's argument that section 32(10) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule provides the only consequence for late delivery of an application without a reasonable excuse, and by incorrectly concluding this was a new issue on reconsideration.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for a new hearing.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a decision dismissing his application for judicial review.

The applicant argued the motion judge erred in finding he lacked standing and that the court lacked jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's decision.

The respondent was awarded costs of $5,579.50.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of an Associate Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding party.