Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The defendant appealed an interlocutory order that dismissed his motion to strike the plaintiffs' civil contempt motion for lack of particulars, but ordered the plaintiffs to provide clear and concise particulars.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the motions judge erred in applying the test for adequate particulars by failing to recognize the strictissimi juris nature of civil contempt proceedings.

The court also held that the motions judge erred in principle by granting the plaintiffs an unsolicited right to amend their defective motion without balancing the relevant factors.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision to the Divisional Court and brought a motion to stay the appeal pending the completion of a related Superior Court action alleging mortgage fraud.

The respondent sought to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding it would constitute an improper collateral attack on the Board's proceedings.

However, the court granted the appellant an extension of time to perfect the appeal, conditional upon her making monthly payments to the respondent to maintain the property.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her claim for unpaid commissions.

The trial judge had dismissed the claim, finding the contract was with the appellant's numbered company and the limitation period had expired.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in making these findings without hearing evidence.

However, the appeal was dismissed because the appellant had previously initiated the same claim through her company more than two years before issuing the current claim, meaning the action was clearly statute-barred.

The appellant sought to adjourn its motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board.

The appellant discovered that a witness who testified at the Board hearing had previously made a presentation to Board members, prompting the appellant to commence an application for judicial review regarding procedural fairness.

The court granted the adjournment, noting that it would be an inefficient use of court resources to hear the leave to appeal motion when the underlying decision could potentially be declared a nullity through the judicial review application.

The applicant sought costs of $90,180 plus disbursements on a substantial indemnity basis against both the Ministry of Natural Resources and Mr. Duncan following a successful application for judicial review.

The Divisional Court declined to award costs against the Ministry, finding the real dispute was between the applicant and Mr. Duncan.

The court also rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, noting Mr. Duncan's conduct was not harsh or vexatious.

After reducing the claimed amount for excessive fees, including those of a retired lawyer acting as a witness, the court fixed costs at $30,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements payable by Mr. Duncan.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court decision that stayed their action for unpaid health and welfare benefits to allow the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) to determine if it had jurisdiction.

The dispute arose following a union raid.

The Divisional Court confirmed it had jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders of the Small Claims Court but dismissed the application, agreeing that the OLRB, which has exclusive jurisdiction over labour relations issues, should first determine its jurisdiction over the matter.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a motion judge's order fixing the amount required to discharge a lien registered against the respondent's unit for legal costs incurred in obtaining a compliance order.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge erred in law by failing to explain how she calculated the 'additional actual costs' under s. 134(5) of the Condominium Act.

However, because the appellant deliberately chose not to tender evidence of its actual legal costs on the motion, the court allowed the respondent's cross-appeal and limited the appellant's recovery to the original $10,000 costs award, ordering the lien discharged.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

The appeal was originally filed in a timely manner but inadvertently in the Court of Appeal instead of the Divisional Court as required by the Business Corporations Act.

The responding parties refused to consent to a one-day extension, arguing the appeal lacked merit.

The court granted the extension, finding the delay was de minimis, there was no prejudice, and the appeal met the low threshold of having some merit.

The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing its claim for damages in negligence or breach of contract resulting from commercial carpet cleaning.

The Divisional Court held that the trial judge's refusal to draw inferences of negligence from circumstantial evidence was open to him and did not constitute a palpable and overriding error.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the appeal, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis, which the court rejected, awarding partial indemnity costs of $6,209.88.

Both parties also sought costs for the earlier motion for leave to appeal, on which the appellants had been successful.

The court found that due to divided success between the leave motion and the appeal, no costs should be awarded for the leave motion.

Following an appeal and cross-appeal, the appellant sought costs against the respondent tenants.

The Divisional Court awarded costs to the appellant fixed at $15,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court declined to order the costs payable on a joint and several basis, instead directing that each respondent tenant pay an equal share of the total costs award.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding them jointly liable with a co-defendant for unpaid invoices owed to the respondent contractor.

The respondent had performed mechanical and electrical work on a property being developed by the appellants and the co-defendant.

The deputy judge found that a partnership or joint venture existed between the appellants and the co-defendant, and that the co-defendant had contracted with the respondent as an agent for the venture.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the deputy judge's findings of fact regarding the existence of a joint venture or partnership.

The court held that the appellants were jointly liable for the debts incurred on behalf of the venture, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant banquet hall appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for breach of contract and ordering the return of the respondents' $10,000 deposit.

The respondents had booked a wedding reception but sought to postpone it due to illness, which the appellant treated as a cancellation under the contract.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred in law by failing to apply proper principles of contractual interpretation.

The contract clearly stipulated that a failure to proceed on the specific function date constituted a cancellation, entitling the appellant to retain the deposit and claim liquidated damages.

The plaintiff farmer raised wild boars and was told by the defendant City to remove them or face charges under an exotic animal by-law.

The plaintiff removed the boars, suffering financial loss, and was subsequently charged, though the charges were later withdrawn.

The plaintiff sued the City in negligence, arguing it failed to consider whether his operation was a 'normal farm practice' exempt from municipal by-laws under the Farming and Food Production Protection Act.

The City appealed the dismissal of its motion to strike the negligence claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the City did not owe a statutory or common law duty of care to the plaintiff.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their claim for damages arising from their detention and search by police officers.

The officers had detained, handcuffed, and searched the appellants while investigating a break and enter, despite the appellants not matching the suspect descriptions.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error in concluding there were reasonable grounds for investigative detention.

The court also found the appellants were de facto arrested, not merely detained.

The court awarded each appellant $500 in damages for false arrest and imprisonment.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a trial judge's order denying him costs after he was awarded $12,000 in a wrongful dismissal action.

The trial judge denied costs under Rule 57.05(1) because the award fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, which had increased to $25,000 during the litigation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle in the trial judge's exercise of discretion, noting the plaintiff's continuing obligation to assess the appropriate forum and the undue length of the trial caused by the plaintiff's unsuccessful pursuit of punitive damages.

The court determined the costs of two pre-hearing motions in an appeal.

The respondent was awarded $2,500 in costs on a partial indemnity basis for successfully moving to strike the self-represented appellant's improperly cast motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded for the appellant's successful motion to extend the time for appeal, as the appellant required an indulgence from the court and the respondent took an unreasonable position in resisting the motion.

The plaintiffs were successful in their motion for leave to appeal, with the ultimate issue concerning the limitation period reserved to the trial judge.

The court awarded costs of the motion to the plaintiffs in the amount of $3,500, exclusive of disbursements and HST, considering the factors in Rule 57.01 and the uniqueness of the law.

The applicants sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment in a commercial lease dispute.

The underlying action involved a dispute over a $210,000 payment, which the tenants claimed was a security deposit and the landlord claimed was a commission.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that a trial was necessary to resolve conflicting evidence, and concluding that the matter did not involve issues of public importance.

The appellant, an inmate, appealed the dismissal of his action for malicious prosecution and Charter damages against a police officer and the Crown.

The appellant had been charged with assault causing bodily harm following a prison fight, but the charge was later withdrawn.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to lay the charge and did not act with malice.

The court also confirmed that mala fides is required to establish a breach of section 7 of the Charter in this context, and that the appellant sued the wrong level of government for his transfer to a maximum-security facility.

The appeal was dismissed.