Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from an order of Belobaba J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The appellant subcontractor supplied materials to a construction project but was not paid by the contractor, who subsequently went bankrupt.

Having failed to register a construction lien, the appellant sued the owner for breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act and unjust enrichment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Act requires privity of trust for a trust claim and that the comprehensive statutory scheme of the Act provides a juristic reason precluding an unjust enrichment claim against the owner.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order approving the forms of release proposed by the respondents to finalize an estate settlement.

The parties had previously reached a settlement agreement regarding the distribution of the estate, but could not agree on the terms of the releases.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge made no palpable and overriding errors and correctly applied the principle that settlement implies a promise to furnish a release.

The court also denied leave to appeal the costs order, noting it was made on consent, and awarded the respondents $5,000 in costs for the appeal.

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 of $3,000 to each of the three responding parties, for a total of $9,000.

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant, commenced an application against the Ontario Ombudsman without obtaining prior leave from a judge, in breach of a court order.

At a show cause hearing, the applicant argued the prior order was illegal and that a letter he sent to the judge constituted a good faith request for leave.

The Divisional Court rejected these arguments, finding the applicant in contempt of court.

The court imposed further restrictions requiring the applicant to obtain permission from a Case Management Judge before even seeking leave to commence future proceedings, and adjourned sentencing.

The moving party sought an extension of time and leave to appeal from an unreported order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with costs fixed at $5,000.

An interim stay previously ordered was terminated.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from an order dismissing its appeal of an interlocutory order that discharged a certificate of pending litigation.

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

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order denying an adjournment and deeming his motion to oppose a certificate of assessment abandoned.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal regarding his difficulties retaining counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer test and the motion judge made no error in denying the adjournment given the appellant's repeated failures to file materials or comply with court orders over an 11-month period.

The self-represented appellant sought to adjourn the scheduled date for his appeal and requested to present new evidence and call a witness.

The court denied the adjournment because the appellant failed to explain why he was unavailable on the scheduled date, noting that court obligations take priority.

The court also advised that fresh evidence on appeal is subject to a strict test and must be presented in written form, not through live testimony.

The applicant, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant, commenced an application against the Ontario Ombudsman without obtaining the required leave of the court.

The court ordered the applicant to appear at a show cause hearing to address why he should not be held in contempt for breaching the prior order.

The application was immediately stayed pursuant to the vexatious litigant order, and will be dismissed if leave is not obtained.

The moving party withdrew its motion for leave to appeal the order of Justice Nishikawa.

The Divisional Court awarded costs of the withdrawn motion to the respondent in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed at $1,500 to the respondent.

The moving party, Simon Miller, brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order of Engelking J. dated August 20, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and awarded costs to the responding party in the all-inclusive amount of $3,361.75.

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

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

On agreement of the parties, costs were fixed at $10,000 payable to the successful respondent.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a decision of the Condominium Authority Tribunal ordering it to produce redacted legal invoices to a unit owner.

The corporation had sent a letter to all owners blaming a small group of owners for increased legal costs, which the Tribunal found constituted a waiver of solicitor-client and litigation privilege over the invoices.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's application of the common law principles of waiver or its interpretation of the disclosure exceptions under the Condominium Act.

During a case management teleconference for an appeal, the self-represented appellant failed to attend.

The appellant had previously requested an in-person hearing.

The court noted that in-person hearings were suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic and ordered the appeal to proceed by videoconference.

A hearing date was set, with instructions for the appellant on how to request an adjournment if necessary.

A case management teleconference was held to schedule the hearing of an application regarding the sale of a property.

The court scheduled the hearing for December 11, 2020, and provided directions for the filing of materials via Caselines or a file-sharing platform.

The respondent agreed not to close the sale of the property prior to the conclusion of the hearing.

The court also provided directions for a potential motion for security for costs.

The moving party sought an order for the Sheriff to sell a property to satisfy a judgment debt.

The responding party sought an adjournment, arguing the property belonged to his deceased mother's estate.

The court dismissed the adjournment request, noting a 2017 order had already declared the transfer to the mother a sham and ordered the sale.

The court directed the Sheriff's sale to proceed and set a timeline for the occupants to vacate the property.

The applicants, the City of Toronto and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, brought a motion for an interim injunction to stop an arbitration between the respondents, Resource Productivity & Recovery Authority and Stewardship Ontario.

The applicants argued that the arbitration was not the proper forum to challenge a funding obligation decision and sought to have the matter determined by judicial review.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the arbitration to proceed as scheduled.

The plaintiff appealed a decision declining to certify a negligent misrepresentation class action against underwriters of a secondary public offering.

A statutory misrepresentation claim against the issuer had already been certified on consent.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the certification judge erred in concluding that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The Court held that resolving the common issues of duty of care, truth of the representation, and negligence in a single proceeding would significantly advance the claims, promote judicial economy, and improve access to justice compared to individual actions.