Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The appellant brought a motion to stay an order granting the respondent a writ of possession and permission to sell the appellant's suite to collect approximately $140,000 in unpaid damages and costs.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found there was no serious issue to be tried, as the appeal was largely a collateral attack on previous unappealed orders.

The court also found a stay was not in the interests of justice given the appellant's history of ignoring court orders.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $17,918.66 for unsold jewelry under a consignment agreement.

The appellant, who was self-represented at trial, argued the trial was unfair due to the handling of her adjournment request and the trial judge's failure to assist her with procedural steps.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge failed to provide necessary assistance to the self-represented litigant regarding the adjournment and the tendering of documentary evidence.

The court also found the trial judge erred in applying an arbitrary 20% discount to the damages calculation.

A new trial was ordered.

The applicant brought an application for judicial review seeking compensation from the school board for an alleged historical failure to diagnose and accommodate a learning disability.

The court initiated a process under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine whether the application should be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Divisional Court has no jurisdiction to award damages or compensation on an application for judicial review, making the application clearly doomed to fail.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding them liable for $25,000 in damages plus costs for breaching a Buyer Representation Agreement (BRA) with the respondent real estate brokerage.

The appellants argued the trial judge made several factual and legal errors, including finding the BRA enforceable despite their claim that it was not adequately explained.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's conclusions that the appellants understood the BRA, deliberately bypassed the respondent to avoid paying commission, and engaged in unreasonable conduct warranting elevated costs.

The appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent tenant $25,000 in damages for illegal distraint and dismissing the landlord's claim for unpaid common area expenses.

The Divisional Court found that the landlord-tenant relationship ended when the landlord changed the locks, making the subsequent distraint of the tenant's chattels illegal.

The court also upheld the dismissal of the landlord's claim for common area expenses due to a lack of supporting evidence at trial.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a minority shareholder, appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing part of his oppression remedy claim as statute-barred.

The motions judge found the appellant was aware of the constituent elements of his claim regarding a corporate dilution transaction more than three years before commencing the action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's conclusion on discoverability, noting that a fresh and discrete act of oppression did not occur to extend the limitation period.

The Law Society moved to strike a portion of the appellant's notice of appeal on the basis that it was filed outside the 30-day time limit prescribed by Rule 61.04.

The appellant had appealed a decision on the merits and a subsequent costs decision, believing the time to appeal the merits ran from the date of the costs decision.

The court found the appeal of the merits decision was out of time, but exercised its discretion under Rule 3.02 to extend the time for filing, noting the lack of prejudice to the Law Society and the inextricable link between the merits and costs decisions.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order dismissing an appeal from a Master's decision requiring a non-party witness to answer questions on a refusals motion.

The underlying motion sought to hold the moving party liable for a judgment against dissolved corporations under the Business Corporations Act.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that while there was some doubt about the relevance of certain questions, the moving party failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal raised an issue of general importance transcending the interests of the parties.

The appellant manufacturer appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent damages for defective roofing shingles.

The appellant argued the action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the respondent knew or ought to have known the identity of the manufacturer more than two years before commencing the action, based on correspondence from his insurer and a product colour guide in his possession.

The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.

The appellant purchased a nearly 100-year-old home from the respondent and subsequently discovered several defects, including water damage, unconnected plumbing, and electrical issues.

She sued for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation in Small Claims Court, but her claim was dismissed.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that there was no fraudulent misrepresentation and that the appellant, who had obtained a home inspection and negotiated a second offer, did not rely on any alleged misrepresentations.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The defendant sought an extension of time to appeal a Small Claims Court order that set aside a default judgment on the condition that he pay $5,000 into court.

The plaintiff had obtained the default judgment in 2007, and the defendant only moved to set it aside after being arrested for contempt for failing to attend judgment debtor examinations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate a continuing intention to appeal, his conduct showed a pattern of delay prejudicing the plaintiff, and he failed to articulate any error by the deputy judge.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiffs' claim for negligent investigation against the Special Investigations Unit (SIU).

The plaintiffs, family members of a youth killed in a police shooting, alleged the SIU's inadequate investigation compromised their participation in an inquest and civil action.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding conflicting jurisprudence on whether police or the SIU owe a private law duty of care to victims' families, and noting the issue is of general importance to the development of the law.

The moving party sought to quash a Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant regarding a trial judgment for damages arising from an unprovoked assault and a subsequent costs award.

The appellant argued the time to appeal ran from the formal entry of the judgment, not the date of the decisions.

The court held that time runs from the date of pronouncement, rendering the appeal out of time.

The court quashed the Notice of Appeal and declined to extend the time to appeal the merits decision due to lengthy delay and weak grounds.

However, the court granted an extension of time to seek leave to appeal the costs decision, finding the delay brief and the proportionality of the costs arguable.

The applicant sought to have no costs awarded following an unsuccessful application and motion.

The Divisional Court held that costs should follow the event, as there was no novel issue or public interest raised.

The court rejected the York University Faculty Association's request for substantial indemnity costs and awarded $1,500 to York University and $3,500 to the Faculty Association, payable by the applicant.

The plaintiff appealed a Deputy Judge's decision dismissing his action after refusing to grant an adjournment on the first day of trial.

The plaintiff's counsel requested the adjournment to obtain newly discovered documents relating to the value of the damaged car, but failed to adequately explain the nature of the documents or why they were not produced earlier.

The Divisional Court found that while the Deputy Judge's decision was understandable given counsel's inadequate submissions, the interests of justice required granting the adjournment so the case could be resolved on its merits.

The appeal was allowed and the dismissal set aside, though the $1,000 costs award to the defendant for the trial attendance was upheld.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to disqualify the respondent's counsel, Lerners LLP, due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The applicant argued that Lerners represented a key witness for the applicant in personal tax matters, creating a risk of misuse of confidential information and breaching the duty of loyalty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's factual findings that there was insufficient connection between the retainers and no direct adverse interest.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion for partial summary judgment on a mortgage claim.

The Divisional Court found that the motions judge erred in concluding there was a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the appellant knew or ought to have known the respondent signed the mortgage under false pretences.

The court held that a lending bank owes no duty of care to a borrower absent a special relationship giving rise to a fiduciary duty, which was not present here.

The appeal was allowed and partial summary judgment was granted.

The plaintiff appealed an interlocutory order removing their lawyer as solicitor of record in a slip-and-fall action.

The motion judge had found the lawyer's conduct in contacting corporate counsel of a non-party to be imprudent and in breach of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the non-party was not represented by the defendant's counsel and there was no conflict of interest.

The court held that the motion judge mischaracterized the test for removing a solicitor and that the lawyer's conduct did not bring public confidence in the justice system into question.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for an assault that occurred during a recreational hockey game.

The trial judge found that the appellant deliberately punched the respondent in the face after the referee had stopped play, causing dental injuries.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the respondent did not assume the risk of a deliberate, unprovoked attack and that the liability waiver did not bar recovery.

The court also upheld the award of special damages for future dental work, finding the respondent's dentist was qualified to provide opinion evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The insured retained a public adjuster on a contingency fee basis to assist with a fire insurance claim.

The insured applied for a declaration that the adjuster's fees were a 'loss' under statutory condition 11 of the Insurance Act, and therefore subject to the appraisal process under s. 128.

The application judge agreed.

The insurer appealed, arguing that 'amount of loss' should be restricted to property damage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that economic losses were covered by the policy and the enhancer endorsement, and that any ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the insured.