Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The applicant father in a custody and support proceeding moved for summary judgment to dismiss the respondent mother's counterclaim for an interest in property.

The motions judge adjourned the summary judgment motion pending the applicant's delivery of a financial statement and transcripts.

The applicant sought leave to appeal the adjournment to the Divisional Court.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the adjournment and noting a conflicting decision regarding the adjournment of summary judgment motions for unrelated document production.

The appellants appealed three Small Claims Court judgments regarding vandalism to their vehicle, trespass on yacht club property, and a lien on their boat.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the Occupiers' Liability Act did not apply to third-party vandalism, that nominal damages for trespass were appropriate, and that the Repair and Storage Liens Act applied to boats stored in water.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to reduce the costs awarded in the lien action, finding the trial judge exceeded the limits under the Small Claims Court Rules.

The defendant in a motor vehicle accident claim moved for the production of correspondence relating to the settlement of the plaintiff's other motor vehicle accident claims, arguing it was necessary to prevent double recovery for economic loss.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the settlement negotiations were protected by settlement privilege and were irrelevant.

The court noted that the plaintiff's damages would be determined through a global assessment based on medical evidence, ensuring the defendant would only pay for the damages they caused.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a motions judge's decision that allowed the defendants to seek security for costs under s. 12(1) of the Libel and Slander Act, despite the plaintiff being a resident of Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions on the issue and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's interpretation that the statute permits security for costs against resident plaintiffs.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding the seizure of a leased vehicle.

The respondent had signed a personal guarantee for a corporate automobile lease covering multiple vehicles.

The trial judge found in favour of the respondent, imposing an implied obligation on the appellant to provide notice before seizing the vehicle.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the trial judge erred by ignoring the clear and unambiguous terms of the guarantee and considering the respondent's subjective intentions.

The appeal was granted and the trial decision was overturned.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding $3,000 plus costs for defamation.

On appeal, the appellant brought a preliminary motion to introduce fresh medical records regarding his psychiatric condition, arguing it should relieve him of liability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the Palmer test and finding the evidence could have been adduced at trial and would not have altered the result.

The court found no error in the trial judge's decision and dismissed the appeal, awarding $4,000 in costs to the respondent.

The appellants appealed an order of the Master dismissing their motion to extend the time for service of the statement of claim.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred by focusing entirely on the length of delay and the expiry of the limitation period rather than whether the respondents were prejudiced.

Applying the principles from Chiarelli v. Wiens, the court found no evidence of prejudice to the respondents, as their insurers were involved early, copies of the claim were mailed, and medical reports were provided.

The appeal was allowed and the time for service was extended.

The moving party sought to set aside an order of a single judge refusing leave to appeal a substantial costs award made by the Ontario Municipal Board.

The moving party argued that the costs award penalized them for exercising their right to a hearing de novo.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the single judge did not decline jurisdiction or apply a wrong principle in refusing leave to appeal, but rather considered the argument on its merits and rejected it.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $12,203.73 for unpaid commissions and $28,400.00 in costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding on the merits, concluding there was ample evidence to support the commission entitlement.

However, the court found the trial judge erred in the costs award, noting the importance of proportionality and reasonableness under the simplified rules.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the trial costs reduced to $10,000.00.

The appellant sought a stay of an interlocutory injunction order restraining it from using the words 'Cricket Club' in its real estate development marketing, pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test for a stay, finding that the respondent had a very strong case on the merits for passing off, and would suffer irreparable harm through loss of control over its trade name if the stay were granted.

The motion for a stay was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement.

The defendant had agreed to pay $500,000 to settle allegations of sexual assault during a doctor-patient and employer-employee relationship, but stopped payments after $56,000, alleging the agreement was obtained through fraud and economic duress.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that genuine issues of fact and credibility regarding the nature of the relationship and the validity of the duress defence required a trial.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision refusing an injunction.

The motion judge had dismissed the injunction motion on the basis of res judicata, as the moving party was one of several parties to an identical motion previously dismissed, and because the second and third steps of the RJR Macdonald test were not met.

The Divisional Court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and held that the legal issues raised were not of general importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed without costs.

The defendant insurer appealed an order granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction that required it to pay periodic disability benefits to the plaintiff pending trial.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order, finding that the motions judge erred in concluding the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm.

The Court held that social stigma, loss of dignity, and potential loss of residence were not supported by the evidence as constituting irreparable harm in this context, and that the policy did not provide for ongoing future benefits without proof of continuing disability.

Following a successful appeal setting aside a default judgment, the court determined the issue of costs.

The appellants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the respondent wrongly invoked the Registrar's jurisdiction.

The respondent sought costs thrown away due to the appellants' initial failure to defend.

The court declined to award costs of the motion or appeal to either party, noting the appellants' default caused the proceedings and they failed to raise the jurisdictional issue below.

The appellants were ordered to pay $290 in costs thrown away for the steps taken by the respondent in default.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision refusing a proposed amendment to pleadings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Master that it was plain and obvious the facts could not support a finding of fiduciary duty, as the hallmarks of a fiduciary relationship were not present.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for leave to appeal an order requiring it to pay six months of statutory accident benefits as a lump sum and ongoing weekly payments as a term of adjourning the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief.

The Divisional Court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's order, noting that such payments can be ordered to respond to the impact of an adjournment or as part of the insurer's duty of utmost good faith.

The court held that the scale of the payment was not a matter of general importance and refused leave to appeal.

The appellant garnishee appealed two related Small Claims Court decisions regarding garnishment of debts owed to two debtors.

In the Ali matter, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the garnishee's representative had acknowledged the debt during informal proceedings, supporting the trial judge's implicit finding.

In the Seepersaud matter, the court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for a rehearing, as there was no evidentiary basis or acknowledgement of a debt by the garnishee.

The appellant private school appealed a trial judgment awarding $8,800 in damages to the respondents for the expulsion of their eight-year-old daughter without notice or a hearing.

The school argued the trial judge based the decision on a breach of an implied contractual term of natural justice, which was not pleaded.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the allegations of procedural unfairness were central to the dispute from the beginning and were sufficiently pleaded in the context of a breach of fiduciary duty, meaning the school knew the case it had to meet.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their application for a declaration that the insured was dead under section 208 of the Insurance Act.

The trial judge had relied on hearsay evidence from an investigator regarding statements made by the insured's sister, which suggested the insured had planned to fake his death.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error by using this hearsay evidence for a truth purpose without properly applying the principled approach to hearsay.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $6,000 in damages and $1,000 in costs for a breach of contract regarding motor vehicle repairs.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by rendering a decision without receiving the appellant's written submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had a reasonable time (six months) to submit written arguments but failed to do so, and therefore was not denied a substantive right.

The court also upheld the damages and costs awards, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusions and no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.