Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The moving party sought an extension of time to bring a motion for leave to appeal two interlocutory orders: an order dismissing a request for forensic imaging of the responding parties' servers and devices, and an order dismissing a contempt motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, finding that the moving party failed to adequately explain its lengthy delay in pursuing the correct appeal route.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the proposed appeals lacked merit, as the motions judge correctly applied the legal tests for forensic imaging and civil contempt, and there was no good reason to doubt the correctness of the orders.

The appellant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal two Small Claims Court judgments, citing severe health issues and medical treatments as the reason for the delay.

The respondent opposed the motion, highlighting the appellant's history of non-compliance with court orders and multiple adjournments.

The Divisional Court applied the test for extending time to appeal and found that the appellant failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit or any merit to the proposed appeals.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing her appeal from a Master's decision.

The Master had set aside a registrar's order dismissing the plaintiff's fraudulent conveyance action for delay.

The Divisional Court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the lower courts' decisions, which held that the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for the delay due to inadvertent error and that the defendant suffered no non-compensable prejudice.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for an interlocutory injunction to stay a decision lifting a stop work order, the court determined costs.

The applicant argued it was a public interest litigant and should not pay costs.

The court found the applicant's strategy of narrowing issues to natural justice lacked evidentiary support on the merits and that it was irresponsible to hide behind a lack of funds after asserting it could meet undertaking requirements.

Costs were fixed at $27,000 payable to the developer on a substantial indemnity basis and $5,000 payable to the municipality.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision granting certificates of pending litigation against their properties.

The respondent, who held an unpaid judgment of over $5 million, alleged the properties were fraudulently conveyed to avoid creditors.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge applied the correct legal test for granting a certificate of pending litigation in a fraudulent conveyance action and made no error in weighing the equities.

The defendants appealed a Master's decision that permitted the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim to include extra-contractual misrepresentation claims despite an entire agreement clause, and refused the defendants' amendments pleading similar fact evidence of the plaintiffs' aggressive litigation history.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Master correctly struck the similar fact pleadings as they did not constitute an affirmative defence of abuse of process.

The court also upheld the Master's decision to allow the plaintiffs' extra-contractual claims to proceed through the pleadings stage, noting that under the Tercon principle, such claims are not necessarily doomed to failure.

The Master's deferral of discovery planning was upheld as a reasonable exercise of discretion.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding her personally liable for unpaid paralegal invoices.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding of personal liability because the appellant failed to disclose she was contracting on behalf of a corporation.

However, the court allowed the appeal on the basis that the two-year limitation period had expired before the appellant was added as a defendant.

The court held that the limitation period began to run 30 days after the invoice date, not after subsequent demands for payment.

The action against the appellant was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $10,000 in damages and $4,000 in costs for malicious prosecution and defamation arising from false allegations of sexual assault.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, relied on stereotypes, and improperly awarded costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility assessments were supported by the evidence and that the costs award was reasonable given the six-day trial.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order that stayed their proposed class action (the Labourers Action) and granted carriage to a competing proposed class action (the DALI Action).

The underlying actions alleged securities misrepresentations by Barrick Gold Corporation.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the motion judge's approach to assessing the complexity of claims and the state of preparation conflicted with established case law and provided good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision.

The defendants sought leave to appeal two interlocutory orders compelling their witness to answer questions refused on cross-examination and refusing to vary the initial order.

The court found that the first category of questions was moot because the witness had already answered them without condition.

The court also held that the defendants failed to satisfy the test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) for both categories of questions, as there were no conflicting decisions and the issues were not of such importance to warrant leave.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision upholding an arbitrator's award for private school tuition and a special award for unreasonably withholding benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court found the Delegate's broad interpretation of 'incurred' and 'undertaken' under s. 15 of SABS was reasonable.

The court also upheld the finding that the insurer unreasonably denied benefits by relying on flawed expert reports and ignoring the insured's future needs.

The court fixed the quantum of the special award at $20,000.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action against their homeowners' insurance provider for the theft of medical marijuana plants from their backyard.

The insurer had paid out a limited amount under the 'landscaping' extension but denied full coverage under the 'personal property' provision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that while the stolen plants became personal property upon being detached from the ground, they were not 'usual to the ownership or maintenance of a dwelling' as required by the policy.

The appellants purchased a home from the respondents in 2004 and subsequently discovered numerous defects, including issues with the heating system, balcony, and flooring.

They commenced Small Claims Court actions against the vendors, the real estate agent, and the home inspector.

The Deputy Judge dismissed the claims on summary judgment, finding they were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's factual conclusions regarding when the appellants ought to have discovered the defects.

The defendants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the plaintiff $6,855.68 for water damage to her condominium's hardwood floor caused by a leak from the defendants' unit above.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in interpreting condominium renovation rules and by relying on previously undisclosed evidence to order a full floor replacement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual conclusions and noting that the Small Claims Court has broad discretion to admit relevant evidence under section 27 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant was successful in appealing a Small Claims Court judgment and sought costs of $3,329.35.

The respondent, who was self-represented, submitted a brief email claiming $395.50 for limited legal advice.

The court found the appellant's claimed costs exceeded the principle of proportionality, as they represented over 30% of the $10,000 judgment in issue.

Costs were awarded to the appellant in the fixed amount of $2,000 inclusive of HST.

The parties consented to fix costs in the amount of $89,972.43.

The court ordered that the costs be payable within two weeks of the respondent deciding not to appeal, or within two weeks of an order dismissing the respondent's appeal if leave is granted.

If the respondent successfully appeals, costs will be determined by the Court of Appeal.

The appellants (defendants) appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding them liable for negligence and fundamental breach of contract regarding a roof installation.

The trial judge found the appellants failed to follow manufacturer specifications for high wind areas, voiding the 30-year warranty, and rejected their reliance on an 'act of God' exclusionary clause for wind damage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of the law.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court Deputy Judge's decision to halt a judgment debtor examination because the debtor was receiving social assistance.

The Divisional Court found that there is no authority in the Small Claims Court Rules to prevent an examination on this basis.

The purpose of the examination is to gather financial information, which may include uncovering assets unknown to social assistance agencies.

The application was allowed, the Deputy Judge's order was set aside, and a new examination was ordered before a different judge.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim regarding access to condominium records and ordering him to pay $2,000 in costs.

The Divisional Court found no reasonable apprehension of bias or breach of natural justice in the deputy judge's conduct.

However, the court held that the deputy judge erred in penalizing the applicant in costs for conduct outside the proceeding.

The application was allowed in part, and the costs award was reduced to $150 plus $500 in disbursements.

The appellants appealed a decision denying their claim for replacement value coverage under their automobile insurance policy.

The appellants argued that an insurance agent misrepresented that the coverage would last for five full years from the vehicle's delivery, whereas the policy terms ended the coverage at the policy expiry date between four and five years.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the policy terms were not surprising or shocking, a new contract was formed upon the annual renewal which explicitly excluded the coverage, and the appellants did not rely on the alleged misrepresentation to their detriment.