Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dismissing his motion to dismiss the claim based on an arbitration clause in a collective agreement.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to consider whether the order was final or interlocutory.

The parties agreed the order was final.

The Divisional Court found it lacked jurisdiction and transferred the matter to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Koehnen J. dated March 25, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs were awarded to the defendants, fixed at $5,000 for each of the two defendant groups, totaling $10,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $2,500.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $25,000 for a concealed mould defect in a house she purchased from them.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by admitting hearsay evidence from a contractor, imputing knowledge of the defect, and acting unfairly during the trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly exercised discretion to admit the hearsay evidence under the Courts of Justice Act and that overwhelming circumstantial evidence supported the finding that the appellants knew about and concealed the mould.

Following the release of its decision allowing the Crown's appeal and setting aside a class action certification order, the Divisional Court entertained post-decision submissions from the respondent based on two new Court of Appeal decisions regarding state liability in negligence.

The court concluded that the new decisions applied settled law and did not alter its previous reasoning.

The court amended its previous disposition to clarify that while the appeal is allowed and the certification order is set aside, the underlying action is not dismissed, leaving that issue for the parties to address below.

The appellant employee appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding her wrongful dismissal.

After her position became redundant, the parties agreed to ten weeks of working notice.

The employer subsequently terminated her early, alleging job abandonment when she took pre-scheduled vacation.

The trial judge found the employer breached the agreement and awarded the balance of the ten weeks' pay.

On appeal, the employee argued the breach rescinded the contract, entitling her to common law reasonable notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the agreement was binding and the employer's breach constituted a repudiation, not a rescission, as the employee had already received half the benefit of the agreement.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order of the motion judge dated January 11, 2021.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Healey J. dated May 21, 2021.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Ferguson J. dated February 2, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering him to pay the balance owing on a restoration contract.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding a fixed-price contract, assessing deficiencies, and adding the respondent's corporation as a plaintiff at the start of trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the contract and deficiencies.

The court also held that adding the corporate plaintiff was either done on consent or was a permissible correction of a misnomer, as the appellant knew he was dealing with the individual respondent's company and suffered no prejudice.

The appellant purchased commercial property subject to an easement, with a vendor take-back mortgage that would be reduced by $442,000 if the vendor failed to register a valid release of the easement within one year.

The vendor obtained a court order discharging the easement and registered it two days before the deadline, but the order was subsequently appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the purchaser's appeal, holding that while a court order can satisfy the requirement for a release, an order subject to subsisting appeal rights does not provide the bargained-for certainty of good title.

The purchaser was therefore entitled to the $442,000 reduction in the mortgage principal.

The moving party brought an unopposed motion for leave to appeal the decisions of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Justice Tranquilli dated March 29, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, as no cost summaries were filed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting that the responding party only submitted a brief letter in response.

The defendants appealed the certification of a class action claiming intrusion upon seclusion following a massive data breach by third-party hackers.

The certification judge had allowed the claim to proceed, finding it was not plain and obvious that the novel claim would fail.

The Divisional Court majority allowed the appeal and set aside the certification of the intrusion upon seclusion claim, holding that the tort requires an actual intrusion by the defendant, not merely a failure to prevent an intrusion by others.

The plaintiffs' economic interests were adequately protected by the tort of negligence.

The moving party sought an extension of time to perfect a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) that denied minor variances for a lot severance.

The moving party missed the deadline to perfect the motion by over a year.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, finding that while there was a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was extensive without a satisfactory cumulative explanation, the proposed appeal lacked merit as it did not raise questions of law of general importance, and the respondent would suffer prejudice from the ongoing delay.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from endorsements refusing his requests to adjourn an upcoming trial.

The court directed the moving party to serve and upload his materials by a specific deadline.

The moving party failed to upload any materials by the deadline.

Given the imminent trial date, the Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Emery J. dated January 29, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $2,500.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order denying summary judgment.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the question of whether the dispute resolution clause (GC8) in the contract between the parties extinguished the responding party's right to bring a court action.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 3, 2019.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed in the amount of $2,500.