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 and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to each of the two responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were provided by any party, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal multiple orders and requested extensions of time.

The Divisional Court denied the motion and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $2,500.

The self-represented applicant requested an adjournment of his judicial review and appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment to February 28, 2024, on peremptory terms.

The applicant was ordered to pay $500 in costs thrown away and to pay $5,000 into court pending further order.

Failure to make these payments would allow the respondent to move to quash the proceedings.

The applicants brought a motion to compel the Ministry of the Solicitor General to add several categories of documents to the Record of Proceeding in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application challenges the decision to build a new correctional facility on a site in Kemptville, alleging violations of the Planning Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants were seeking impermissible documentary discovery and that the requested documents related to core policy decisions regarding site selection, rather than the justiciable legal issue of whether the decision violated the Planning Act.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review and sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

After the motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, the court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting the judicial review application appeared to raise the same issues.

The court found the application was an attempt to relitigate issues already decided and did not raise any factual errors outside the scope of the statutory appeal mechanism.

The application for judicial review was dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1.01.

The moving parties, operators of a dog-sledding business, sought to set aside a single judge's decision refusing to extend a stay of an Animal Care Review Board costs order regarding the care of their removed dogs.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error in the motions judge's balance of convenience analysis, which heavily weighed the mounting public costs of caring for the dogs.

The panel also rejected a request to disqualify one of its members based on prior involvement in a related judicial review, and admitted but gave no weight to fresh evidence of a new statutory application for the dogs' return.

The appellant buyer appealed a decision dismissing its motion for production of the respondent sellers' lawyer's file.

The appellant argued that the respondents impliedly waived solicitor-client privilege by pleading that they relied on legal advice in good faith when exercising a solicitor approval clause to terminate a real estate transaction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a denial of bad faith and an assertion of good faith reliance on legal advice does not amount to an implied waiver of privilege.

The court also found no error in the motion judge's interpretation of the solicitor approval clause.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate's decision upholding an arbitrator's rulings on interest and costs in an accident benefits dispute.

The applicant argued that interest on retroactive attendant care benefits should be calculated from an earlier date, and challenged the costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the interest issue was squarely governed by the court's prior decision in Grigoroff, which held that interest runs from the date the retroactive claim form is filed.

The court also found the costs award was highly discretionary and the Delegate's decision to uphold it was reasonable.

Following a successful appeal that reversed a Small Claims Court decision for lack of monetary jurisdiction, the appellants sought costs of $19,016.45.

The respondent argued the amount was excessive.

The Divisional Court found the issues were of moderate complexity and fixed the appellants' costs at $5,000 inclusive for both the appeal and the Small Claims Court proceeding, noting the amount claimed in the underlying action was less than $70,000.

The appellant requested an adjournment of the appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the adjournment to an in-person hearing on March 1, 2023, making the date peremptory on the appellant, with or without counsel.

Costs of the day were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party, respondent on the appeal, brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 61.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the appeal was frivolous and vexatious, the appellant had insufficient assets in Ontario, and there was a history of abusing the court process and failing to pay outstanding judgments.

The motion was granted, and the appellant was ordered to post security for costs of $43,584.21, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.

The moving party, a paralegal whose license was revoked nunc pro tunc due to a false statement on his original application, sought an extension of time to appeal the Law Society's decision.

The Law Society had required a two-stage process, relegating the assessment of his intervening good character to a new application.

The court found the moving party had an arguable appeal regarding the reasonableness of this two-stage process, provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and noted no prejudice to the respondent.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The moving party sought leave to extend the time to bring a motion to vary a previous order that had dismissed her request to extend the time to appeal Landlord and Tenant Board decisions.

She also sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding ongoing noise and harassment complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding it was brought out of time without justification.

The court also held that the fresh evidence was irrelevant to the previous decisions and that the underlying appeal lacked merit as it challenged factual findings rather than errors of law.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claims for wrongful dismissal and defamation against her former employer.

The trial judge found that the employer's statement that an invoice was 'fraudulently produced' was defamatory but substantially true, and thus justified.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in defining 'fraudulent' and in finding that the recipient of the invoice was not a client.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's contextual analysis of the defence of justification or his factual findings.

The appellant appealed orders of the Superior Court to the Divisional Court.

At the hearing, the court raised a preliminary question regarding its jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 19(1)(a.1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court adjourned the appeal sine die and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the jurisdictional issue and whether the appeal should be transferred to the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent law firm for unpaid legal fees.

The appellant argued it is unjust to grant summary judgment for solicitor's fees without an assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had repeatedly agreed to pay the accounts and his complaints about the quality of work were afterthoughts intended to delay the claim.

The motions judge correctly applied the test for summary judgment under Rule 76.07(9).

The appellants brought a motion for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal to the Divisional Court from a Small Claims Court decision.

The underlying decision had dismissed the appellants' motion to set aside an administrative dismissal of their claim.

The court applied the Kefeli factors and found that while the appellants had an intention to appeal, they failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their subsequent delay.

The court also found that the respondents would suffer prejudice and that the merits of the appeal were dubious.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing her motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff was injured in an altercation with another guest at a house party hosted by the moving party.

The motion judge found that whether the moving party's role engendered a duty of care under the principles of social host liability was a genuine issue for trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, agreeing that there was some evidence that could support a finding of responsibility and that the threshold test for leave to appeal was not met.

The self-represented plaintiff appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claims against the City of Toronto and the Toronto Police Services Board.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal of claims based on direct liability and statute-barred parking tags.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding abuse of process, finding that the plaintiff was not seeking to re-litigate or set aside a prior judicial finding.

The appeal was allowed in part, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.