Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing his motion to vary a Mareva injunction and to compel the responding parties to fund his defence to a contempt motion.

The court found that the moving party had repeatedly failed to disclose his assets as ordered, making it impossible to meet the test for varying the injunction or claiming a need for advance funding.

The court concluded that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the underlying orders and no matter of general importance was raised.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicant franchisees sought leave to appeal an order that refused to restrain the franchisor from terminating their franchise agreements and granted an injunction restraining the franchisees from continuing to operate.

The court applied the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision and no matters of general or public importance, the court denied leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent franchisor.

The self-represented plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an order refusing their request to adjourn the trial.

The plaintiffs wanted an adjournment to challenge a settlement approved for a co-plaintiff under a disability.

The motion judge had denied the adjournment, finding no prejudice to the plaintiffs proceeding to trial while continuing to challenge the settlement.

The plaintiffs failed to attend the trial, resulting in the dismissal of their claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions, no good reason to doubt the correctness of the order, and no matters of public importance.

The moving party dentist sought leave to appeal an order refusing partial summary judgment to dismiss the responding party's claim for damages arising out of an alleged geographic tongue injury.

The moving party argued there was no evidence linking his treatment to the injury.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decision or matter of general importance.

The court noted that the responding party's expert had previously opined that the geographic tongue injury stemmed from the pain following the dental work, creating a genuine issue for trial.

The appellant appealed a trial decision ordering it to pay damages and costs arising from a construction contract dispute.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant was responsible for soffit and dropped ceiling work, finding no palpable and overriding error.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding roof drainage repairs, finding the trial judge's factual findings did not support holding the appellant 50% responsible.

The court also reduced the trial costs award, finding the trial judge erred in principle by awarding a premium over partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an order removing their counsel of record.

The motion judge had removed the plaintiffs' counsel based on an unsworn, un-noticed motion by an individual defendant alleging a conflict of interest, and subsequently refused to consent to the release of the hearing transcript.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding reason to doubt the correctness of the order due to the lack of notice, evidence, and opportunity to be heard, and noting that the issues of right to counsel, natural justice, and access to court transcripts are of fundamental importance to the administration of justice.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing his motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The motion judge had found that there were too many facts in dispute regarding the plaintiff's fitness to return to work to resolve the matter summarily.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the appeal raised issues of public importance beyond the interests of the individual parties.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict awarding her $2,500 in general damages (netting $0 after the statutory deductible) and a costs award of $140,000 following a motor vehicle accident trial where liability was admitted.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to charge the jury on the 'Thin Skull Rule' and by making comments that raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the jury verdict was reasonable and the trial judge's comments did not show bias.

The court also granted leave to appeal the costs order but dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the Rule 57.01 factors despite not providing written reasons.

The appellant appealed an order bifurcating the trial of liability and damages, arguing that bifurcation cannot occur without consent when a valid jury notice exists.

The respondent municipality cross-appealed the motion judge's refusal to strike the jury notice, arguing that section 108 of the Courts of Justice Act prohibits jury trials when a municipality is a party.

The Divisional Court granted leave for the cross-appeal and held that the rules and statute operate to prohibit the filing of a jury notice where a municipality is named.

The court allowed the cross-appeal, set aside the jury notice as a nullity, and consequently dismissed the appellant's appeal regarding bifurcation.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion to strike the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The plaintiffs sued the police for negligence, Charter breaches, and public misfeasance after being victims of a drive-by shooting, alleging the police failed to arrest the known shooter.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding conflicting decisions between two judges on similar pleadings and reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's novel approach to determining police liability.

The appellant contractor's construction lien expired after it failed to set the action down for trial within two years.

The respondent owner brought a motion without notice under section 46 of the Construction Lien Act, resulting in the dismissal of the entire action, including the appellant's breach of contract claims.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that while the lien claims were properly dismissed, the contract claims should not have been summarily dismissed without notice.

The court varied the order to allow the breach of contract claims to proceed, noting that the Act does not mandate the dismissal of non-lien claims upon the expiry of a lien.

The applicant sought leave to extend the time to appeal an order that dismissed his motion for leave to appeal a trial costs decision.

The central issue was whether the motion judge applied the wrong legal test by finding no strong grounds that the trial judge erred in exercising his discretion regarding a last-minute offer to settle.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge applied the correct legal test and confirmed that no strong grounds existed.

The motion for leave to extend the time to appeal was denied.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that set aside a Registrar's order dismissing the respondents' action for delay.

The motion judge had set aside the dismissal because he found the respondents were not given notice of the dismissal proceeding.

On appeal, fresh evidence showed notice was sent but returned because the respondents had moved and failed to update their address with the court.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the respondents could not use their failure to update their address as an excuse, and reinstated the Registrar's order dismissing the action for delay.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside a Certificate of Assessment and declare Minutes of Settlement void.

He argued that he did not understand the terms of the agreement and lacked independent legal advice.

The Divisional Court heard the matter de novo based on the motion record.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to provide his own affidavit evidence to support his claim of non est factum, and that independent legal advice is not a strict legal requirement for an agreement to be enforceable.

Following an appeal, the defendant sought costs and submitted a bill of costs for $28,908.49, but indicated a willingness to accept $18,000.

The plaintiffs did not contest entitlement but argued the appropriate amount was $15,000.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was not overly complex and agreed with the plaintiffs' submission, fixing the costs of the appeal at $15,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiffs, aboriginal persons removed from their homes by Ontario child welfare authorities and placed with non-aboriginal families, brought a proposed class action against Canada for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence.

Canada appealed the dismissal of its motion to strike the statement of claim and the certification of the class action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence disclosed no reasonable cause of action, given Canada's unique relationship with aboriginal peoples and its delegation of child welfare responsibilities to Ontario.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal a motions judge's order that made no award of costs for several motions.

The plaintiffs argued there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision and that it involved issues of general importance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that costs are a quintessential exercise of discretion and the motions judge made no error in principle.

The court also noted that the plaintiffs were seeking an indulgence and that the case did not raise any matters of general importance.

The appellant moved to transfer a residential tenancy appeal from Brampton to Toronto and to expedite the hearing due to the appellant's terminal illness.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing inconvenience and unfairness.

The court granted the motion, finding that the uncontradicted evidence of the appellant's terminal cancer made the transfer and expedition desirable in the interests of justice, and that the respondents failed to demonstrate any resulting unfairness or inconvenience.

The appellant brought a motion for an extension of time to serve and file a notice of appeal from a Small Claims Court decision regarding a disputed legal retainer.

The court applied the four-factor test for extending time to appeal, finding that the appellant formed an intention to appeal in time, the delay was minimal with a reasonable explanation, there was no prejudice to the respondent, and the appeal had sufficient merit.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her action for unpaid wages against the respondent's corporation.

The trial judge found the claim was statute-barred because the appellant discovered her claim when she quit her employment due to unpaid wages, more than two years before commencing the action.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the limitation period began to run when the appellant quit, not when her employment insurance claim was finalized.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the self-represented respondent.