Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an adjournment order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs fixed on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal from a power of attorney order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties were ordered to pay costs of $8,640 to the responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from a benefit permit order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $7,418 to the responding parties.

The moving party sought an extension of time to move for leave to appeal and leave to appeal an interlocutory order regarding the admissibility of documents.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The court noted that the underlying interlocutory decision is not binding on the trial judge regarding the admissibility of the impugned documents at trial.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the agreed amount of $5,060.

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

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of Ramsay J. dated June 30, 2021.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal interlocutory orders.

A non-lawyer claiming to be an Indigenous Grand Chief purported to represent the moving party without court authorization, filing vexatious materials and refusing to follow case management directions based on claims of Indigenous sovereignty.

The court barred the unauthorized representative from acting in the Divisional Court without leave, dismissed the representative's purported motion to review case management decisions under Rule 2.1.01, and ordered the moving party to personally comply with court directions or face dismissal of his motions for leave to appeal.

The moving party, a self-represented litigant, sought an extension of time to appeal a costs order made more than two years prior.

Despite multiple directions from the court explaining the test for an extension and providing opportunities to file proper materials, the moving party failed to do so.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and ultimately dismissed the motion as it could not possibly succeed.

The moving party was also barred from bringing further motions in the Divisional Court regarding the underlying file without prior permission.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his claim against a lawyer and the Law Society of Ontario.

The Divisional Court issued a Rule 2.1.01 notice indicating the appeal appeared frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The appellant failed to provide a substantive response, instead accusing the judge of incompetence and bias.

The court dismissed the appeal under Rule 2.1.01 and ordered that the appellant must obtain leave before commencing any future proceedings in the Divisional Court.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its request to dismiss the action under Rule 2.1.01.

Due to an administrative error, the motions judge did not receive or consider the appellant's responding submissions before releasing her decision.

When notified of the error, the motions judge declined to reconsider the matter and directed the parties to pursue their remedies under the Rules.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge should have set aside her decision and either reconsidered it or directed it to another judge, rather than requiring an appeal.

The decision was set aside and remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision regarding the calculation of interest on a mortgage.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal, ordering judgment in an amount that accounts for interest at 8.25% for the first six months of the mortgage term and 18.00% for the seventh month and thereafter.

Written reasons were to follow.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding $20,350.60 to the respondent real estate brokerage for an unpaid commission.

The appellant argued the Deputy Judge erred in applying the discoverability test under the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the reasons were insufficient.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Deputy Judge made no errors in applying the modified objective test for discoverability, especially given the appellant's own misrepresentations about not looking for a property.

The reasons were also found sufficient for appellate review.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $10,000 in damages for defamation arising from an email sent to their condominium management following an altercation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the action, finding multiple errors of law.

The court held that the defamation claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as it was added to the pleadings more than three years after the email was sent.

Furthermore, the court found that the respondent failed to properly plead or prove the elements of defamation, and the trial judge erred by failing to consider available defences such as qualified privilege.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of the lower court dated February 12, 2021.

The Divisional Court reviewed the written materials submitted by the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding party in the all-inclusive amount of $3,646.63.

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 $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal from an unreported order of B. MacNeil J. dated April 15, 2021.

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

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

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Doi J. dated September 18, 2020.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 25, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $7,500 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Gilmore J. dated September 24, 2020.

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