Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

Following the dismissal of the appellant landlord's appeal, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The self-represented respondent sought over $800,000 in costs, while the appellant argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found the respondent's costs claim was improperly advanced as a claim for damages.

However, recognizing that the respondent was successful and had to attend court, despite not filing responding materials, the court exercised its discretion to award the respondent a modest costs amount of $500.

The appellant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a 2000 motor vehicle accident, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding his claim for enhanced attendant care benefits.

The Divisional Court upheld the LAT's findings that the appellant could not claim retroactive benefits without a valid reason for delay and that the definition of 'incurred' under the New Schedule applied procedurally to his claim.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the 2% per month interest rate on overdue benefits under the Old Schedule applied as a substantive benefit, rather than the 1% rate under the New Schedule.

The respondent was successful on an application for judicial review concerning environmental regulation and hazardous gas wells.

The parties agreed that if costs were awarded, $20,000 all-inclusive would be reasonable.

The applicant argued that no costs should be awarded because the application raised novel issues of public importance.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding that while there were few decisions under the specific Act, related environmental protection case law provided sufficient guidance.

The court declined to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event and ordered the applicant to pay $20,000 in costs to the respondent.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 27, 2022.

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

The defendants appealed a motion judge's interpretation of a Supreme Court of Canada costs order.

The motion judge had found the plaintiff was only required to repay $12,180, while the defendants argued the order required repayment of $200,000.

Rather than deciding the appeal, the Divisional Court ordered the parties to jointly apply to the Supreme Court of Canada for clarification of its own order, finding this to be the most efficient and proportionate method of resolving the ambiguity.

The appellant sought leave under section 246 of the Business Corporations Act to commence a derivative action and file pleadings on behalf of a corporation in an ongoing shareholder dispute.

The application judge refused leave, finding that the proposed action would not benefit the corporation and that the appellant was not acting in good faith due to a conflict of interest.

On appeal, the Divisional Court applied the Housen standard of review and found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed the motion and awarded costs of $2,500 to the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed two orders made by the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court found that the appellant failed to identify any errors in either of the orders.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict awarding $55,000 in damages following a motor vehicle accident, arguing the assessment was inconsistent, unreasonable, and out of proportion to the injuries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no obvious inconsistency in the jury's findings.

The court held that the verdict was reasonable, as the jury was entitled to assess the plaintiff's credibility and prefer the evidence of the respondent's medical expert over the appellants' expert.

The appellant car dealership appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting the respondent rescission of a motor vehicle purchase agreement and return of her $7,964 payment.

The trial judge found the transaction was a consumer purchase under the Consumer Protection Act and that the dealership engaged in an unfair practice by failing to provide a bill of sale and complete financing details.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the dealership's unfulfilled promise to provide a legally compliant bill of sale constituted a false, misleading, or deceptive representation under section 14 of the Act, entitling the buyer to rescission.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel regarding a costs award made by a Hearing Panel that had recused itself.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review to the Appeal Panel's decision.

The Court dismissed most of the appellant's arguments, finding the Appeal Panel reasonably concluded that both parties were at fault for failing to raise a conflict of interest issue earlier, and that success was divided on a bias motion.

However, the Court reduced the costs awarded to the Law Society for a motion to exclude evidence by 50%, as the parties agreed the motion took less time than the Appeal Panel had estimated.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay $2,915.40 for roof repairs.

The appellant, who was self-represented, argued that the trial judge was biased against him, erred in admitting certain photographs, and made incorrect factual findings regarding the cause of a roof leak.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and concluding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in her assessment of the evidence.

The appellants appealed an order validating substituted service of a statement of claim on defendants residing in Guatemala.

Guatemala is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, and service was attempted by notaries in a manner that did not comply with Guatemalan law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that Rule 17.05(2) unambiguously allows a plaintiff to choose to serve a foreign party in accordance with Ontario rules when the foreign jurisdiction is a non-contracting state.

The Court held that this express rule overrides the international principle of comity.

The plaintiffs appealed a jury verdict that dismissed their personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident in a parking lot and assessed their damages at zero.

The plaintiffs argued the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on the Highway Traffic Act and that the zero damages assessment was perverse.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the jury charge on the standard of care was correct and sufficient, and that the jury's assessment of damages was open to them based on the competing medical evidence.

The unsuccessful appellant in an OMB appeal sought to be excused from paying costs, arguing he was acting as a public interest litigant.

The court rejected this argument, finding the litigation did not involve an issue of public significance extending beyond the immediate parties.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court found the respondents' requested amounts excessive and awarded $10,000 to the primary respondent and $5,000 to each of the other two respondents.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding the ownership of $9,000 in a joint bank account held by the deceased and his niece, the respondent.

The trial judge found that the deceased intended to gift the balance of the account to the respondent through survivorship, thereby rebutting the presumption of resulting trust.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and concluding that the correct legal test was applied.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to exclude the medical report and evidence of a defence expert, Dr. Bednar, prior to trial.

The motions judge had declined to rule on the admissibility, holding that such a determination should be reserved for the trial judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, with the majority finding that it would be extremely rare for a motions judge to be in an equal or better position than the trial judge to rule on the exclusion of expert evidence.

Matlow J. dissented, arguing the motions judge had jurisdiction under Rule 37.02(1) and should have considered the merits.

The appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to file appeal documents.

The appellant had previously been granted leave to appeal a costs decision but failed to file the notice of appeal with the court, despite serving it on the respondents.

The court found that the appellant always intended to appeal and that the delay was partly due to settlement discussions between the parties.

The motion for an extension of time was granted, with costs of $400 awarded against the appellant, to be deducted from a previous costs award.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a motion judge's dismissal of their motion to enforce a settlement under Rule 49.09.

The motion judge had found he could not determine whether a settlement had been reached.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions on the application of Rule 49.09 and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, as he properly applied a Rule 20 summary judgment approach to the first step of the settlement enforcement analysis.

The plaintiff sought costs of an appeal to the Divisional Court on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Attorney General conceded the plaintiff was entitled to costs but argued they should be on a partial indemnity basis.

The court agreed with the Attorney General, noting that substantial indemnity costs require egregious or vexatious conduct.

The court also disallowed costs for the attendance of two of the plaintiff's counsel who had acted as affiants and were requested to withdraw from the hearing.

Costs were fixed at $13,145 plus disbursements and GST on a partial indemnity basis.