Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory procedural order regarding amendments to a statement of claim.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the motion as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Noting the moving party's history of numerous dismissed proceedings and the fundamental flaws in the current motion, the court dismissed the proceeding under Rule 2.1.

The court also imposed terms requiring the moving party to obtain permission before commencing further proceedings or seeking fee waivers in the Divisional Court.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a notice of application for judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying motor vehicle accident benefits.

The moving party had previously discontinued an application for judicial review due to adverse case law that was later reversed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no apparent grounds for relief, as the causation issue had already been decided on appeal and the allegations of institutional bias lacked specifics.

The court also noted the lengthy delay and the principle of finality weighed against granting the extension.

The defendant appealed the dismissal of its motion for summary judgment.

The defendant argued that the dispute resolution clause in the construction contract extinguished the plaintiff's right to bring a court action because the plaintiff failed to deliver a Notice of Dispute within 15 days of the defendant's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial as to whether the defendant satisfied the condition precedent of 'consultation and co-operation' before rendering its decision, which would trigger the 15-day deadline.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his $25,000 claim for damages arising from a condominium water leak.

At trial, the appellant attempted to introduce a new expert report on mould on the final day of trial, which the trial judge refused to admit due to late notice and unfairness to the respondents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's discretionary decision to exclude the late evidence under Rule 18.02(1) was not clearly wrong and did not amount to an injustice.

Furthermore, the trial judge correctly found that the appellant had sued the wrong parties.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision regarding the applicable pre-judgment interest rate and the quantum of costs following a settlement in a motor vehicle accident claim.

The Divisional Court held that the legislative amendment reducing the pre-judgment interest rate was substantive and did not apply retroactively.

The Court also upheld the motion judge's decision to award the plaintiff unrecovered costs from a statutory accident benefit arbitration, finding that the recovery of those benefits constituted a benefit to the defendants in the tort action.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to strike the plaintiff's claims for damages arising from delayed market entry of a generic drug.

The defendants argued the Patent Act provided a complete code, precluding common law claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting Ontario decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, emphasizing that pleadings motions should rarely warrant appellate review.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' motion for leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding a development on lands with significance to indigenous persons, the successful respondents sought costs.

The court declined to award costs against the appellants, finding they met the criteria for public interest litigants as they raised issues of public importance regarding indigenous religious sites and had no pecuniary interest in the outcome.

Additionally, the court awarded costs to the appellants' counsel personally against one of the respondents for an abandoned claim for personal costs under Rule 57.07(1).

The applicant sought judicial review of the Toronto Police Services Board's decision refusing to purge a 'person of interest' record from his Police Vulnerable Sector Check regarding an unproven 2000 allegation.

On this motion, the applicant sought an order allowing him to proceed anonymously using initials and redacting identifying information from the record.

The court granted the request to use initials and redact his identifying information, finding a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm if his name was disclosed, and that the balance of convenience favoured protecting his privacy to allow the judicial review to proceed.

The request to redact information about his relatives was denied.

The applicant, a former NHL referee, brought a motion to vary an order that quashed his affidavit filed in support of an application for judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion in part, finding that the motions judge erred in striking portions of the affidavit that went to an essential finding of fact regarding anti-union animus and alleged denials of procedural fairness.

The court reinstated specific paragraphs of the affidavit while upholding the exclusion of the remainder.

The appellant, an assignee of unpaid invoices for trucking services, appealed a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed its breach of trust claims under the Construction Lien Act against the corporate and personal respondents.

The trial judge had granted judgment for breach of contract against one corporate defendant but found no trust funds were received by it, and that the other corporate defendant had properly disbursed all received funds to beneficiaries under section 10 of the Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the facts or application of the statutory trust provisions.

The moving party's motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order was dismissed from the bench.

The court subsequently received written submissions on costs from the successful responding party.

The court awarded the responding party costs of the motion on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $500.

The appellant appealed a Master's decisions interpreting Minutes of Settlement in a construction lien action regarding roof repairs.

The Divisional Court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under section 71(1) of the Construction Lien Act because the Master's report had not yet been confirmed.

In the alternative, reviewing the merits, the court found the Master correctly interpreted the settlement agreement's definition of 'Work' and made no palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion for certification of a class proceeding against a tour operator regarding a norovirus outbreak at resorts in the Dominican Republic.

The Divisional Court found that while the motions judge did not err in narrowing the class definition, he erred in principle in his analysis of the preferable procedure criterion by failing to assess it in the context of the narrowed class.

The appeal was allowed, the dismissal and costs orders were set aside, and the matter was referred back to the motions judge for consideration of a revised litigation plan.

The appellant contractor appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent damages for a defective driveway installation.

The appellant argued the trial judge improperly bifurcated the trial and awarded an amount exceeding the claim.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in awarding judgment in excess of the amended claim of $4,381.65.

However, the court declined to order a re-hearing, finding the respondent had established liability and damages up to the claimed amount.

The appeal was allowed to reduce the judgment to $4,381.65.

The appellant solicitor appealed the decision of Forestell J., which confirmed the assessment of an Assessment Officer following a four-day hearing.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge was correct in concluding that the Assessment Officer's findings were reasonable and entitled to deference.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $3,500.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's decision regarding an oral contract, arguing that the trial judge made findings of credibility and fact not supported by the evidence.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge did not misread or misinterpret the evidence, and that her findings regarding the settling of accounts were supported by the record.

The court concluded there was no palpable or overriding error and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $2,000 to the respondents.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to appeal, arguing that the motion judge declined jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the motion judge did not decline jurisdiction, did not act on a wrong principle, applied the proper test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and gave the applicant every opportunity to be heard.

No costs were ordered.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision dismissing his motion to amend pleadings to add three defendants and new causes of action, as well as the Master's costs award.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Master's conclusion that the proposed claims against the new defendants were untenable in law and that the new causes of action were barred by issue estoppel.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis.

The moving party, a defendant in a motor vehicle action, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that compelled the disclosure of any expert's report obtained from a joint vehicle inspection and required the parties to split outstanding storage costs.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal the disclosure order, finding good reason to doubt its correctness as it abrogated litigation privilege, which is a matter of public importance.

However, the court denied leave to appeal the storage costs order, characterizing it as a discretionary decision with no broader public importance.

The Crown sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that refused to strike out portions of the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs alleged that the infant plaintiff's death in a hospital was caused by overcrowded conditions resulting from the funding and restructuring decisions of the former Premier and Health Minister.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision regarding the claims of negligence and abuse of public office.

The court also found that the motion judge's approach conflicted with Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on the duty of care owed by public authorities, and that the issues raised were of significant public importance.