Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order requiring $4,000,000 from the proceeds of the sale of their property to be paid into court as security for the respondents' damages claim.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal and set aside the order, finding that the motion judge erred in law by applying the general test for an interlocutory injunction rather than the stringent test for a Mareva injunction.

The court held that there was no evidence of a real risk of asset dissipation, no undertaking as to damages was provided, and the alternative argument under Rule 45.02 failed because the respondents sought damages rather than an interest in a specific fund.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment in a mortgage enforcement action.

Prior to the appeal hearing, the appellants paid out the principal and interest, and the mortgage was discharged.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the appeal was moot.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no live controversy and declining to exercise its discretion under the Borowski test to hear the moot appeal, as there were no collateral consequences or issues of broad public importance.

The appeal was quashed with no costs awarded.

The successful appellant on a Small Claims Court appeal sought to settle the terms of the order.

The respondent argued that because the original costs award was under the $3,500 appeal limit set by O. Reg. 626/00, the appellant was still required to pay the $1,600 costs ordered at first instance despite winning the appeal.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, holding that when an appeal is allowed, the costs order below is set aside.

The regulatory appeal limit does not preserve a costs order when the underlying decision is overturned.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order enforcing a settlement agreement regarding the ownership of a trained service dog.

The appellants argued that the respondent failed to provide original ownership documentation, which they claimed was an essential term of the settlement, and that the agreement was signed under duress.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's interpretation that original documents were not required.

The court also rejected the appellants' procedural fairness arguments, noting they had voluntarily abandoned their duress claim and made a strategic decision not to call their former counsel.

The appellants appealed an order requiring them to purchase the respondent's minority shares in a corporation.

The motion judge made the order to advance the litigation, finding that both parties ultimately wanted a share buyout.

The appellants argued they were denied procedural fairness because the issue of a compelled share purchase was not formally before the motion judge, and that a finding of oppression was required first.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants had notice of the argument, suffered no prejudice, and that the court had broad discretion under the Business Corporations Act to order a share purchase without a finding of oppression.

The appellant sought to appeal a partial summary judgment ordering the sale of jointly owned property and dismissing his trust claim.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the trust claim, as its value exceeded $50,000.

Although the court had jurisdiction over the property sale order, the issues were intertwined.

Consequently, the court ordered the entire matter transferred to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The employer appealed a summary judgment decision awarding the employee damages for wrongful dismissal, arguing the employee was on a fixed-term contract that had expired.

The employee cross-appealed the dismissal of her claim for punitive damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the repeated renewals of the contract created an ambiguity, rendering it a contract of continuous service.

The court also upheld the motion judge's finding that the employer's advance written notice was insufficient due to its history of issuing and withdrawing such notices.

The cross-appeal for punitive damages was also dismissed, as the employer's conduct did not meet the required threshold.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision dismissing its motion to dismiss the respondent insurer's application for loss transfer indemnity under s. 275 of the Insurance Act.

The dispute arose after a pedestrian was struck by a vehicle insured by the appellant and claimed Statutory Accident Benefits under a motorcycle policy issued by the respondent to the pedestrian's father.

The Divisional Court upheld the arbitrator's findings that the priority scheme in s. 268 of the Insurance Act ranks insurers, not policies, and that the respondent was entitled to indemnification.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge found that the two appellant corporations operated as a single business and were common employers of the respondent.

The appellants argued there was insufficient evidence of common control, the action against one corporation was statute-barred, and the trial judge erred in awarding substantial indemnity costs under Rule 49 by failing to deduct hypothetical tax consequences from the damages award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence supported the common employer finding, the addition of the second corporation was a valid correction of a misnomer, and Rule 49 comparisons must be based on the actual quantum of damages awarded rather than net tax consequences.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Price J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The appellant sought to appeal an order discontinuing a trial and directing that a new trial be scheduled before a different judge.

The Divisional Court determined that the order was interlocutory, not final, as it did not dispose of the litigation.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating it was considering dismissing the appeal as an abuse of process for lacking jurisdiction, but provided the appellant an opportunity to make written submissions.

The appellant employer appealed a summary judgment order awarding the respondent employee nine months' pay in lieu of reasonable notice for wrongful dismissal.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred by failing to draw an adverse inference regarding the respondent's medical evidence and by applying an incorrect legal standard to the duty to mitigate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the respondent's medical condition prevented a serious job search, and no error of law in the application of the duty to mitigate.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his action for nuisance, negligence, and trespass against his neighbour.

The dispute arose when the respondent cut down boundary cedars to build a fence for the safety of a special needs child, after the appellant unreasonably refused consent.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the overgrown cedars constituted a nuisance, substantially and unreasonably interfering with the respondent's use of his property.

The court confirmed that where a boundary tree is a nuisance, the Forestry Act does not prevent a co-owner from abating the nuisance through self-help if the other owner unreasonably withholds consent.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion to quash the responding party's appeal of a Small Claims Court decision that refused a trial adjournment.

The responding party argued the refusal amounted to a denial of natural justice and deprived it of counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to quash, finding that the appeal was not manifestly devoid of merit, as the unusual circumstances surrounding the adjournment request warranted consideration on appeal.

The defendant insurer sought leave to appeal a motion judge's refusal to grant summary judgment in an action arising from a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by an unidentified driver.

The motion judge had concluded that credibility issues prevented summary judgment and that a mini-trial was inappropriate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle, no conflicting case law, and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's discretionary decision.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding that he had entered into a loan agreement with the respondent.

The trial judge accepted evidence that the appellant authorized an agent to borrow funds from the respondent to invest in a charitable tax shelter, with the agreement to repay the loan upon receiving a tax refund.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the case turned on credibility and the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in accepting the respondent's evidence over the appellant's.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing her application to set aside a judgment related to a mortgage default and power of sale, claiming damages of $98,000.

The Divisional Court found it lacked jurisdiction, as its jurisdiction is limited to claims of not more than $50,000 under s. 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to transfer the appeal to the Court of Appeal, noting the appeal lacked merit and the appellant had taken no steps to transfer it despite notice.

The appeal was dismissed without prejudice to the appellant seeking to have it heard in the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding him liable for unjust enrichment for property management services provided by the respondent.

The appellant argued that the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in fact-finding and credibility assessments, and erred in quantifying damages without expert evidence on fair market value.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant continued to demand services and that the trial judge's credibility findings and damages assessment based on historical billing were reasonable.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision certifying a multi-jurisdictional class proceeding regarding the prescription of CHAMPIX, a smoking cessation medication, and the subsequent $300,000 costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification decision.

The court held that the motions judge applied well-established legal principles and made no palpable and overriding error of fact or law.

The costs award was also upheld as there was no error in principle.

The appellant appealed an order made under the Canada Business Corporations Act to the Divisional Court.

The court held that under s. 249 of the Act, an appeal lies to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, not the Divisional Court.

The appeal was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.