Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision certifying a multi-jurisdictional class proceeding regarding the prescription of CHAMPIX, a smoking cessation medication, and the subsequent $300,000 costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification decision.

The court held that the motions judge applied well-established legal principles and made no palpable and overriding error of fact or law.

The costs award was also upheld as there was no error in principle.

The appellant moving company appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $22,419.00 in damages for retaining her personal property.

The dispute arose when the appellant demanded $889.88 for a move the respondent understood to be a fixed price of $500.00.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no overriding and palpable error in the trial judge's conclusions that a fixed price contract existed, the damage award was appropriate, and there was no bias shown by the trial judge.

The plaintiffs (respondents on appeal) brought a motion to quash the defendant's appeal to the Divisional Court on the basis that the aggregate judgment amount exceeded the $50,000 monetary jurisdiction threshold.

The defendant argued that only the costs order was being appealed, which was under $50,000, and that a single judge lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion because leave to appeal costs requires a full panel.

The court held that a single judge has jurisdiction to quash an appeal outside the court's monetary jurisdiction.

The court further held that jurisdiction is determined by the aggregate of the sums awarded in the judgment, not just the portion being appealed.

The motion to quash the appeal was granted.

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 brought a motion for leave to appeal a 'no costs' order made by a Deputy Judge of the Small Claims Court after successfully moving to dismiss the plaintiff's claim due to the expiry of a limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the Deputy Judge made no error in principle and the costs award was not clearly wrong.

The court noted that leave to appeal costs orders should be granted sparingly and that the proposed appeal did not raise an issue of public importance, especially given the small monetary amount involved.

The appellant, Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for damages against the respondent contractor who ruptured a gas main while excavating with a backhoe.

The trial judge had found no liability, reasoning that the gas main was not buried at the required depth and a utility locate would not have prevented the incident.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors.

The respondent breached his statutory duty and standard of care by failing to obtain a locate before digging, which was the sole cause of the damage.

Judgment was granted in favour of the appellant for the repair costs.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him and his corporation to pay $9,300 for a Persian carpet.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by granting judgment against him personally without piercing the corporate veil, as the cheque was drawn on the corporation's account.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that both the individual and corporate defendants were involved in the transaction, having both issued cheques for the purchase price.

As the defendants denied any transaction occurred, the trial judge correctly found them jointly and severally liable as co-buyers.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing their motion to expunge references to an inadvertently disclosed privileged email from the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The plaintiff, a former employee, had received an email from management to the company's lawyers discussing her termination, which prompted her to claim wrongful dismissal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's conclusion that preserving the privilege would be unfair to the plaintiff, as the email fundamentally affected her state of mind and formed the basis of her claim.

The appellant condominium owner sought access to election proxies and ballots after an unsuccessful bid for the board of directors.

The Small Claims Court initially ordered production of the records, but later varied the order to require redaction of identifying information to protect owner privacy.

The appellant appealed the variation order to the Divisional Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the appealed order was procedural and did not involve a monetary amount, and further held that the Small Claims Court judge had jurisdiction to clarify the order.

The appellant seller appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent buyers $25,000 in damages for misrepresentation.

The seller had answered 'no' to a question about flooding on a Seller Property Information Statement, despite knowing of a severe water accumulation problem in the backyard.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the misrepresentation was fraudulent or negligent, that the defect was latent, and that the 'entire agreement' clause did not exclude liability because the SPIS was incorporated into the agreement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The federal government sought costs of $16,235.75 on a partial indemnity scale against the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic and the City of Toronto following the dismissal of their respective motions for leave to appeal and leave to intervene regarding changes to the firearms registry.

The court declined to award costs against the City of Toronto, noting the usual rule that intervenors are neither granted nor awarded costs and that the City acted in good faith.

The court also declined to award costs against the Clinic, recognizing it as a non-profit organization that advanced a claim in the public interest with a genuine interest in the issues in dispute.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his negligence and breach of contract claim against a home inspector.

The appellant alleged the inspector failed to identify wood rot during a pre-purchase visual inspection of a cottage.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding the appellant failed to prove the standard of care or a breach thereof, noting the absence of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence, particularly the inspector's testimony that the rot was concealed and not observable during the initial visual inspection.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent contractor the balance owing for home renovations.

The appellant argued the contract was illegal and unenforceable because the respondent did not hold a building renovator's licence under the Toronto Municipal Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the appellant failed to prove the nature of the work required a licence.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside the orders of a motions judge who had dismissed her motion to amend an application for judicial review and dismissed the application as moot.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, noting it was brought outside the four-day time limit and the applicant failed to identify any error of law.

The panel confirmed the motions judge had jurisdiction to hear the motion to amend pursuant to section 21(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order lifting a stay of the plaintiff's constructive dismissal action.

The defendants argued the action was barred because the Public Hospitals Act provides a comprehensive code for disputes over hospital privileges.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the motion judge's conclusion that the hospital failed to demonstrate the decision to substantially alter the plaintiff's privileges was made pursuant to the Act or hospital by-laws.

The defendants, Via Rail and GEXR, sought leave to appeal an order that permitted the plaintiffs to add GEXR as a defendant after the presumptive limitation period had expired.

The motions judge had found that the plaintiffs exercised due diligence and could not have reasonably discovered GEXR's involvement earlier.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision on discoverability, prejudice, or costs, and noting the decision did not raise matters of general public importance.

Correctional Service of Canada brought an urgent motion to stay a ruling by the Coroner presiding over the Ashley Smith inquest.

The Coroner had dismissed CSC's motion for a sealing order regarding confidential documents and videos.

Applying the RJR Macdonald test, the Divisional Court found that CSC failed to demonstrate a serious issue to be tried or irreparable harm, noting that much of the information was already public and the assertions of harm were speculative.

The motion for a stay was dismissed with costs.

The applicant, a public interest group opposing the use of diesel trains on the air rail link, brought a motion for leave to file an affidavit after completing cross-examinations.

The affidavit sought to explain the applicant's delay in bringing its application for judicial review.

The court applied the four-factor test for granting leave under Rule 39.02(2) and found that the evidence was relevant, responsive to cross-examination, would not cause non-compensable prejudice, and had a reasonably adequate explanation for its late filing.

Leave was granted to file the affidavit, subject to the exclusion of several irrelevant paragraphs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order that had dismissed a previous motion for leave to appeal.

The previous motion was dismissed due to the moving party's failure to pay costs and comply with prior procedural orders.

The court dismissed the current motion, finding that the previous judge properly exercised discretion in dismissing the motion based on procedural default and non-payment of costs.

The court noted the moving party lacked standing to appeal interlocutory orders until complying with or varying the prior orders.

The defendants brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a Small Claims Court judgment.

The court applied the four-part test under Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring a fixed intention to appeal, a good explanation for the delay, merit to the appeal, and no prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court found that the defendants failed to meet at least three of the four requirements, noting a lack of fixed intention, unexplained delay, and no obvious merit to the appeal.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.