Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The respondent (moving party) brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal three orders of the motion judge regarding venue, surveillance, and costs.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Kimmel J. dated March 20, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,891.66.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a December 23, 2019 order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the respondents.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the October 21, 2020 decision of D.L. Edwards J. The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and fixed costs at $5,000 to the moving party in the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from the decisions of Corthorn J. and Shelston J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing and awarded costs of $7,500 to the responding party.

The moving party 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 and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,050.08.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of Pollak J., which dismissed an earlier order of Master Jolley.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $37,773.07.

The moving party brought motions for an extension of time and leave to appeal two previous orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision regarding the possibility of a jury trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion with costs fixed at $5,000, noting that the defendant could renew the motion before the Superior Court of Justice if a jury trial could not proceed in May 2021.

The plaintiffs brought motions for leave to appeal the October 9, 2020 and November 6, 2020 orders of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motions for leave to appeal and fixed costs of the motions at $10,000, payable at the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from the decision of Gilmore J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $7,500 to the responding party F.K.Y. Investments Ltd. No costs were awarded to the Yeung responding parties as they did not file a factum.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $20,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Because the responding party failed to file costs materials by the directed deadline, the court made no order as to costs.

The appellant employer appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding that it had wrongfully dismissed the respondent employee without cause.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons and failed to address inconsistencies in witness testimony regarding whether the employee had resigned.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were sufficient, properly relied on documentary evidence (termination letter and Record of Employment), and contained no palpable and overriding error.

The appellants appealed an order granting the respondent leave to commence a derivative action on behalf of a closely held corporation.

The appellants argued that one of the claims for alleged overpayment of management fees was statute-barred and that the application judge erred in finding the action was in the best interests of the corporation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that there was an arguable case that the claim was not statute-barred and that the application judge's discretionary decision to grant leave was reasonable and entitled to deference, particularly given the overlapping oppression action.

The appellant brought two motions: one to set aside a costs order made by a single judge on an abandoned motion for leave to appeal, and another for leave to appeal a reconsideration decision of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions.

The court found no error in the costs order, noting the appellant could have simply requested reasons under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act instead of bringing a motion.

The court also denied leave to appeal the tribunal's decision, agreeing that the appellant lacked standing under s. 34(19) of the Planning Act because he did not make oral or written submissions at the statutory public meeting.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding Newcastle Salvage liable for $3,304.95 in damages caused when a disposal bin caught on overhead wires.

The appellants argued that the trial judge breached principles of natural justice by adding Newcastle Salvage as a defendant during the trial and proceeding immediately to judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that Newcastle Salvage had notice of the claim, had filed a defence, and its representative was present at trial and given a full opportunity to present a defence.

The court held that the trial judge properly applied Small Claims Court rules and there was no denial of procedural fairness.

The respondent Commission brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 to dismiss the applicant's application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicant sought to challenge a 2017 decision of the Commission regarding a 2006 police incident involving his brother, an issue already decided in a prior 2019 decision.

The court found the application to be an abuse of process, noting the applicant's misuse of fee waivers and improper direct communications with judges.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to appear to show cause why he should not be declared a vexatious litigant and subjected to further restrictions.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion for leave to amend their statement of claim.

The proposed amendments sought to add new causes of action, add a new defendant, and claim declaratory relief regarding the installation of smart meters.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's findings that the proposed amendments were untenable, pleaded evidence rather than material facts, raised statute-barred claims, and constituted an abuse of process by attempting to revive an abandoned claim for reconnection of electrical service.

The appeal was dismissed, with leave granted to deliver a new draft amended claim.