Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order requiring a defendant to disclose the material information contained in a statement he gave to his insurer following a motor vehicle accident.

The statement itself was protected by litigation privilege.

The motion judge found that the order compelling disclosure conflicted with other Ontario decisions regarding whether the contents of a privileged statement must be disclosed on discovery.

Leave to appeal was granted as it was desirable for the Divisional Court to clarify when the contents of such statements are subject to disclosure.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision ordering the disclosure of a police officer's personnel file in a civil suit for wrongful detention and assault.

The court granted leave to appeal pursuant to Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding a conflict between the decision below and another case regarding the interpretation of sections 69 and 80 of the Police Services Act.

The court concluded it was desirable to clarify whether a police officer's personnel file should be disclosed in the context of a civil lawsuit.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision refusing to set aside a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) in favour of the plaintiff.

The motion judge had found it arguable that the plaintiff, a limited partner, had a reasonable claim to an interest in the property through a constructive trust.

The Divisional Court found that while there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, the proposed appeal did not involve matters of such importance to warrant granting leave, as the motion judge had merely found the legal propositions to be arguable rather than making new law.

Leave to appeal was refused.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her motion to amend a judgment that approved an infant settlement, and sought leave to extend the time to appeal the original judgment.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeals, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 19 of the Courts of Justice Act because the orders appealed from did not require payment of any amount by the appellant, and no leave to appeal had been granted.

The respondents moved for security for costs of an appeal from a Small Claims Court decision, arguing the appeal was frivolous and the corporate appellant lacked assets in Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the appeal was not devoid of merit given previous findings regarding the respondent's credibility.

Furthermore, the respondents failed to provide a breakdown of projected costs or evidence that the appellant lacked assets of any kind to cover costs.

The respondents moved ex parte to dismiss the appeal after the appellant failed to comply with a peremptory order to perfect the appeal by a specified date.

The court noted that the appellant had not picked up or paid for the completed transcript.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed.

In supplementary reasons, the Divisional Court amended its previous ruling on costs at the request of the respondents.

The court deleted the original paragraph regarding costs and substituted a new paragraph directing all counsel to address the court in writing on whether costs should be assessed or fixed, and if fixed, the quantum of such costs.

The applicants had filed a bill of costs seeking partial indemnity costs of $308,926.84.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that failed to order the return of a converted vehicle or its value.

The trial judge's factual findings were unchallenged, and the respondent did not cross-appeal.

The Divisional Court found that the appellant was entitled to the vehicle's return or its value of $6,500 at the time of conversion.

Since the respondent had sold the vehicle for salvage, the court varied the trial judgment to award the appellant $6,500 plus pre-judgment interest.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the appellant.

The defendants appealed a costs award in a motor vehicle action where the jury awarded the plaintiff $20,000.

The trial judge found that the defendants' offer to settle was unenforceable and that section 267.5(9) of the Insurance Act required the statutory deductible to be ignored when considering the cost consequences of an offer to settle under Rule 49.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal because the offer was indeed unenforceable, but clarified that section 267.5(9) does not apply to Rule 49 offers to settle, as doing so would undermine the purpose of the offer to settle rule.

Following the dismissal of the moving parties' motions, the responding parties sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court found that the moving parties' conduct, which included bringing unmeritorious motions, causing delays, and sending abusive and defamatory letters to the responding parties and their counsel, warranted sanction.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs fixed at $35,000 plus GST and disbursements, applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable.

The appellant mortgagee appealed a trial judgment that declared its mortgage void and granted priority to construction lien claimants.

The trial judge found the mortgage contravened the financial assistance provisions of the OBCA, the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, and the Assignments and Preferences Act, as the mortgagor was insolvent and the mortgagee failed to conduct due diligence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of legal principles.

A cross-appeal by a lien claimant regarding trial costs was allowed, and its costs were increased.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order compelling answers to discovery questions to the Divisional Court, characterizing it as a final order.

The defendants brought motions to quash the appeal, arguing the order was interlocutory and the proper appeal route was to a Superior Court Judge.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that an order compelling discovery answers does not finally dispose of the substantive rights of the parties and is therefore interlocutory.

The appeal was quashed.

The applicants moved to set aside two orders regarding their claimed beneficial interest in their son and daughter-in-law's matrimonial home.

The first order converted their application into an action, and the second ex parte order vested exclusive title in the daughter-in-law after the applicants failed to comply with the first order's filing deadlines.

The Divisional Court set aside the ex parte order under Rule 37.14(1)(a) because the applicants had indicated an intention to appeal, but affirmed the initial order as the motion to set it aside was not brought forthwith.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $20,580 in damages for a defective motor vehicle.

The trial judge found a fundamental breach of a collateral contract to provide a safe vehicle, entitling the respondent to rescission.

The Divisional Court upheld the damages calculation, noting an equitable adjustment was made for the respondent's use of the vehicle.

The respondent's cross-appeal for leave to appeal costs was dismissed.

The court declined to award costs for the appeal, citing disproportionate fees and the respondent's unreasonable refusal of a settlement offer.

The defendant employer brought a motion for leave to appeal an order refusing to strike out the statement of claim against it.

The employer argued that at common law, an employer cannot be impleaded by an employee seeking a remedy for their union's breach of the duty of fair representation.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the common law is dynamic and a plaintiff should not be denied the possibility of establishing a right to a remedy at the pleadings stage.

The defendant franchisor appealed an order certifying a class proceeding brought by franchisees regarding the distribution of rebates and allowances under a standard form franchise agreement.

The franchisor argued that the representative plaintiffs could not fairly and adequately represent the class and had a conflict of interest because they were not indebted to the franchisor, unlike other franchisees.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the representative plaintiffs could fairly and adequately represent the class and that their lack of indebtedness did not create a conflict of interest on the common issues.

The parties were unable to agree on the quantum of fixed costs awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale following a previous decision.

The respondent claimed $25,580 based on a draft bill of costs totalling $32,822.

The applicant argued the claimed hours were excessive and suggested $8,000.

The court fixed costs payable by the applicant to the respondent at $17,500 for fees and $580 for disbursements, plus applicable GST.

The applicant brought a motion to dismiss or adjourn a motion brought by the respondent Ontario Human Rights Commission, which was scheduled to be heard by a panel of the Divisional Court.

The applicant argued that the respondent failed to comply with a production order and a previous costs order.

The court ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding costs order but dismissed the motion to dismiss or adjourn, finding that the applicant's arguments regarding the timing of the respondent's motion should be made to the panel hearing that motion.

The applicant sought an order under Rule 16.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dispense with personal service of a Notice of Application for Judicial Review and Summonses on a Vice-Chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board and another individual.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the Vice-Chair is immune from such process and the other individual made no decision amenable to judicial review.

The court directed the applicant to amend the title of proceedings if the application is to proceed.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory costs order that denied them costs despite being successful on a motion for an interlocutory injunction.

The motions judge had denied costs on the basis that counsel intentionally underestimated the length of the motion to get on the list.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision as it extended previous case law by denying costs to successful parties who had not misled the judge hearing the motion.

The court also found that the appropriate use of cost sanctions for time misestimates is an issue of public importance.