Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The parties settled an appeal, agreeing that costs would be agreed to or assessed.

No agreement was reached.

The respondent on the appeal asked the court to fix and award the costs of the appeal, while the appellants requested a referral to an assessment officer.

The Divisional Court held that the matter was not complex and retained its discretion to fix costs.

The court awarded the respondent $5,820.63 for the appeal and $3,000 for the appearance.

The appellant's appeal proceedings were previously dismissed as abusive and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The respondent and intervenors subsequently sought costs.

The court awarded the self-represented respondent her requested costs of $537.50.

The court also awarded the intervenors their requested costs of $5,600.28 on a full indemnity basis, finding that the appellant's conduct, which included baseless and scandalous attacks on the integrity of a judicial officer, was especially egregious and warranted the highest scale of costs.

The court declined to order that the appellant be prohibited from taking further steps until costs were paid, noting such relief is not available under Rule 2.1.01.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for certification of a class proceeding regarding emissions 'defeat devices' in certain diesel vehicles.

The motions judge had denied certification on the basis that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, as the vehicles had been recalled and repaired, and there was no evidence of compensable loss.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motions judge's conclusion that a class action was not the preferable procedure.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from the order of Glustein J. dated September 9, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $10,000.

The self-represented appellants, claiming to be tenants, sought to appeal an order made between a second mortgagee and the property owners.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1, noting the appellants were not parties to the underlying proceeding and had no standing to appeal.

The court held that any recourse the appellants might have should be pursued via a motion in the Superior Court of Justice at first instance.

The appeal was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process pursuant to Rule 2.1.01.

The self-represented applicant wrote to the court requesting anonymization, a publication ban under the Child and Family Services Act, and an amendment to the title of proceedings for a previous decision that dismissed her application for judicial review as frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.

The court refused all requests, noting that the previous decision did not disclose any sensitive personal information about children that would warrant a publication ban.

The court emphasized that the open court principle strongly militated against anonymizing the decision, as the applicant's litigation misconduct should remain publicly accessible.

The insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding attendant care benefits for a catastrophically injured insured.

The issue was whether, for accidents occurring before June 3, 2019, the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) payable for attendant care services was included within the $6,000 monthly and $1,000,000 total maximum limits under section 19 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, or payable in addition.

The Divisional Court held that the language of section 19 is unambiguous and that HST must be paid as part of the attendant care benefit, subject to the maximum limits.

The appeal was allowed and the LAT decision was set aside.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded partial indemnity costs to the responding plaintiff.

The applicant, previously disciplined for unauthorized use of the title 'Doctor', brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2) to set aside the Divisional Court's prior decision upholding her discipline.

She alleged fraud and sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding the College's internal procedures for referring matters to discipline.

She also sought to disqualify the College's counsel, and a third party sought leave to intervene.

The Divisional Court dismissed all motions, finding no fraud, no procedural unfairness, and that the fresh evidence would not have altered the original outcome.

The defendants brought an anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action arising from statements made during a local union election.

The court found that the election of an official to a local union is a private matter and not a matter of public interest under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court also noted that the statements, which included allegations of criminal conduct and vulgar language, were not the type of expression worthy of protection.

The motion was dismissed.

The infant plaintiff suffered a severe head injury after falling from a balcony.

The plaintiffs sought to extend the time to set the action down for a non-jury trial to assess damages, while the defendant cross-moved to bifurcate the trial on liability and damages.

The master granted the bifurcation over the plaintiffs' objections, and the decision was upheld on appeal.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Divisional Court, arguing that Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not permit bifurcation of a non-jury trial without consent.

The majority of the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 6.1.01 did not abolish the court's inherent jurisdiction to bifurcate non-jury trials in exceptional cases without consent.

The applicant insurers applied for judicial review of an Umpire's decision under s. 128(3) of the Insurance Act regarding the value of a loss following a house fire.

The Umpire valued the Actual Cash Value at $338,800, which significantly exceeded both the insured's appraisal of $210,000 and the insurer's appraisal of $185,000.

The Divisional Court found the Umpire's decision unreasonable as it exceeded the range of possible acceptable outcomes and lacked reasons to justify the departure from the policy provisions.

The decision was set aside and the matter remitted to a new Umpire.

The appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent tenant $25,000 in damages for illegal distraint and dismissing the landlord's claim for unpaid common area expenses.

The Divisional Court found that the landlord-tenant relationship ended when the landlord changed the locks, making the subsequent distraint of the tenant's chattels illegal.

The court also upheld the dismissal of the landlord's claim for common area expenses due to a lack of supporting evidence at trial.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant brought motions to set aside the orders of a motion judge, who had dismissed its motions to set aside the Registrar's dismissal of its Small Claims Court appeals.

The appeals were dismissed because the appellant failed to comply with a previous order requiring it to order full trial transcripts.

The Divisional Court found no error in the motion judge's decision, rejecting the self-represented appellant's argument that she misunderstood her obligations or was denied a fair hearing.

The motions were dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to certify a class proceeding for unpaid overtime wages against his former employers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motions judge's findings that the appellant failed to establish a cause of action against one defendant, failed to show the existence of two or more class members, failed to provide a litigation plan, and that preferable procedures such as small claims actions or employment standards complaints were available.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the defendants should have been ordered to produce lists of class members, as the appellant had not pursued this request prior to the certification motion.

The moving party sought an adjournment of a request for reconsideration on the basis that transcripts from the cross-examination of two affiants were not yet available.

The respondent objected, arguing the affidavits were irrelevant and the moving party had not moved expeditiously.

The Divisional Court agreed with the respondent, finding that the affidavits in question addressed issues that were either already resolved or irrelevant to the reconsideration request.

The request for an adjournment was dismissed.

The appellant purchased a three-year after-market vehicle warranty from the respondent.

When the appellant sought to renew the warranty, the respondent refused.

The appellant sued in Small Claims Court, where the trial judge found the renewal provision unenforceable because it lacked certainty regarding price and term.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's decision, finding it reasonable to conclude that the renewal clause was merely an agreement to agree and unenforceable without an objective standard or formula to determine the renewal terms.

The self-represented applicant appeared before the court to address his conduct in advancing multiple applications regarding a 2006 police incident involving his brother.

During the hearing, the applicant was belligerent, disrespectful, and repeatedly interrupted the judge, leading to a finding of contempt in the face of the court.

The court sentenced the applicant to three days of time served.

Additionally, exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the court ordered that the applicant be prohibited from commencing further proceedings related to the 2006 incident without prior judicial permission.

The court also dismissed the applicant's latest application under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The applicant housing co-operative brought a motion to quash the respondent member's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The co-operative argued the appeal did not disclose a question of law and was manifestly devoid of merit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the member raised sufficient legal issues regarding procedural fairness and the application of the Residential Tenancies Act to warrant a full hearing before a panel.

The member was ordered to continue paying housing charges pending the appeal.

The appellants' home was destroyed by fire and rebuilt by the respondent contractor, paid through the appellants' insurer.

The final insurance cheque of $24,828.48 was made payable only to the appellants, who kept the funds.

The respondent sued in Small Claims Court for breach of contract and won.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in finding they owed the funds to the respondent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the final payment was intended to cover the respondent's approved final invoice.