Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The moving parties sought security for costs of an appeal brought by the responding party, who had been removed as a director and CEO of a closely-held technology company following a finding of oppressive conduct.

The moving parties argued the appeal was frivolous and vexatious, and that the responding party had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the appeal had a low prospect of success, it was not vexatious, and the moving parties failed to meet their evidentiary burden to show the responding party had insufficient assets in Ontario.

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

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

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

A motions judge struck her affidavit containing evidence not before the HRTO and subsequently dismissed her motion to adduce further evidence as an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.

The applicant brought a motion to a panel of the Divisional Court under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside those decisions.

The panel dismissed the motion, finding it was brought out of time and that the motions judge made no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in applying the general rule against admitting new evidence on judicial review.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a temporary order made by Justice Shelston on August 27, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,745.55.

The infant plaintiff suffered a severe head injury after falling from a balcony.

The plaintiffs sought to extend the time to set the action down for a non-jury trial to assess damages, while the defendant cross-moved to bifurcate the trial on liability and damages.

The master granted the bifurcation over the plaintiffs' objections, and the decision was upheld on appeal.

The plaintiffs appealed to the Divisional Court, arguing that Rule 6.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure does not permit bifurcation of a non-jury trial without consent.

The majority of the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 6.1.01 did not abolish the court's inherent jurisdiction to bifurcate non-jury trials in exceptional cases without consent.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order that dismissed her appeal from a Master's order denying leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation.

The Divisional Court found that there were no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order, which involved the exercise of judicial discretion.

Furthermore, the issues raised were specific to the facts of the case and not of general importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant filed a motion in writing seeking a reconsideration of a 2014 Divisional Court decision that dismissed her appeal from a Law Society of Upper Canada appeal panel.

She relied on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Jordan.

The court dismissed the motion under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, finding no jurisdiction for a panel to reconsider its earlier decision in these circumstances.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order adjourning the defendants' summary judgment motion.

The motion judge had adjourned the summary judgment motion to allow for discoveries to be completed, as the defendants had not provided an evidentiary record to support their limitation period defence.

The plaintiff argued the motion should have been dismissed outright for failure to put their best foot forward.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's exercise of discretion to control the process.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision that ordered them to repay a $21,885.40 commercial debt to the respondent but refused to allow their counterclaim for equitable set-off of $20,886.37 in unpaid legal fees.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law.

The court held that the two transactions were sufficiently close in time and context between the same parties to warrant equitable set-off, making it manifestly unjust to allow the respondent to enforce repayment without accounting for the cross-claim.

The self-represented appellant succeeded on his appeal to the Divisional Court and sought costs for the hearing before the Social Benefits Tribunal and disbursements for the appeal.

The court held it had no jurisdiction to award costs before the Tribunal.

The court awarded the appellant $941.80 in disbursements for the appeal, deducting $300 claimed for parking and meals for a group who helped him, but allowing $100 for office services.

The defendant brought a motion for directions to adjourn its motion for leave to appeal a class action certification order pending the disposition of its appeal of a summary judgment order to the Court of Appeal.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion to dismiss the leave motion for failing to name a hearing date.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions, holding that the certification order frames the proceedings and the leave motion must be heard expeditiously before the summary judgment appeal.

The court declined to dismiss the leave motion on technical grounds and ordered it to be perfected and heard at the earliest opportunity.

During an appeal, an added party sought to raise a Charter challenge to provisions of the Municipal Elections Act.

The Divisional Court declined to hear the constitutional question, noting that the evidentiary record was woefully inadequate.

Furthermore, the order adding the party explicitly stated that it was not to unduly widen the scope of the appeal.

The court held that a Charter application could be brought at any time on a proper record, but it would not be heard in the current appeal nor referred back to the motions judge.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for partial summary judgment for rent arrears and unpaid utility accounts under a commercial lease, and to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim for conversion of chattels.

The court granted partial summary judgment for the rent and utilities, finding no genuine issue for trial as the defendant failed to address these claims in its materials.

However, the court refused to dismiss the counterclaim, finding it raised a triable issue.

The court stayed the execution of the summary judgment pending the counterclaim, on the condition that the defendant pay the judgment amount into court.

The representative plaintiff in a certified class action sought leave to appeal a motions judge's decision dismissing a motion for enhanced notice to class members.

The settlement agreement, which capped the settlement fund at $2.25 million with the residue reverting to the defendants, had been approved by the court.

Due to a low take-up rate, the plaintiff sought to modify the notice provisions.

The motions judge held that the court could not modify a concluded and court-approved settlement agreement without the defendants' consent.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision.

The plaintiff appealed a decision upholding a Master's refusal to strike an affidavit.

During cross-examination on the affidavit, the witness's counsel adjourned the examination so the witness could consult with another lawyer.

When cross-examination resumed, the witness refused to answer questions about the consultation, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The Divisional Court held that the Master erred by placing the onus on the plaintiff to prove interference with the witness's evidence without requiring the defendants to elect whether to waive privilege or withdraw the evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the decisions below set aside, and the matter remitted to the Master.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to repay student loans to the respondent bank.

The central issue was whether the loans were ordinary bank loans subject to a two-year limitation period, or government student loans exempt from limitation periods under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in concluding the loans were made under the Canada Student Loans Act, as that statute had been replaced by the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act at the relevant time.

Given the insufficient evidentiary record regarding the exact nature of the loans, the court allowed the appeal in part and ordered a new trial.

The moving defendant, an assistant Crown Attorney, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing her motion for summary judgment in a malicious prosecution action.

The plaintiff had been charged with murder, but the charges were withdrawn after new evidence surfaced implicating another individual.

The motion judge found that while reasonable and probable grounds existed initially, there were disputed facts regarding the reasonableness of continuing the prosecution after the new evidence emerged.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflict of principle or good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision.

The applicant brought a motion regarding refusals and undertakings arising from examinations in a judicial review application concerning the respondent's authority to enforce notice of licence cancellation.

The court reviewed transcripts and correspondence, ruling on obvious relevancy issues and leaving the remainder to the Divisional Court panel to determine, noting the competing views on the scope of the record.

The appellant client appealed a decision dismissing his appeal from an Assessment Officer's report that upheld a solicitor's account.

The client disputed the terms of the retainer, alleging an oral agreement that limited fees if the firm did not take his case, while the solicitor relied on a written retainer for a legal opinion.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and quashed the Assessment Officer's decision, holding that an assessment officer lacks jurisdiction to resolve a bona fide dispute over the existence or terms of a retainer.

The plaintiff sought costs on a solicitor and client basis following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for leave to appeal a summary judgment decision.

Applying the test from Smyth v. Waterfall, the court found the defendants failed to show that bringing the motion for leave to appeal was reasonable.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a solicitor and client basis, fixed at $4,742.00.