Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The appellant engineering firm appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for $25,000 in unpaid fees for a geotechnical report and awarding costs to the respondents.

The Divisional Court upheld the dismissal of the fee claim, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the parties had agreed to a capped fee of '+/- $15,000' and that the appellant breached the agreement by refusing to deliver the final report until its higher invoices were paid.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding costs, finding the trial judge erred in law by awarding costs against the appellant for 'unreasonable behaviour' merely for naming an agent as a defendant, and by awarding legal fees to a self-represented lawyer without evidence of lost income.

The appellant hardwood retailer appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it liable for negligent misrepresentation regarding the sale of hardwood flooring.

The flooring degraded due to inadequate humidity levels in the respondents' condominium.

The trial judge found the appellant breached its duty to advise the respondents of the product's specific, higher-than-normal humidity requirements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on causation, the respondents' lack of actual knowledge, the inapplicability of an exclusionary clause on the invoice, and the quantum of damages.

The defendant by counterclaim, ONEnergy Inc., sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to strike the claims asserted against it by the plaintiff by counterclaim.

The underlying claim alleged oppressive conduct and sought a constructive trust over assets transferred to ONEnergy.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions under Rule 62.02(4)(a) and no reason to doubt the correctness of the order or matters of general importance under Rule 62.02(4)(b).

The self-represented plaintiff appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her various claims against the defendants, which included compensation for a lost diamond ring, a stolen outfit, unreplaced locks, car damage, and legal expenses arising from alleged false statements to the Children's Aid Society.

The Divisional Court applied the Housen standard of review and found no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's conclusions that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove her claims.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a costs order of $30,000 awarded against them following their unsuccessful motion to vary a Mareva injunction.

They argued that the motion judge erred by not providing written reasons for the costs award, particularly after receiving their late submissions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions requiring written reasons for costs awards under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, and no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, as the record disclosed a proper basis for the judge's exercise of discretion.

Following a successful appeal from a decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, the appellant sought partial indemnity costs of $12,367.42.

The Board argued that no costs should be awarded against it due to its role as an administrative tribunal.

The Divisional Court held that because the Board took an active, adversarial role on the appeal, an award of costs was appropriate.

Finding the claimed amount excessive, the Court fixed costs at $5,000 all inclusive.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order requiring her to pay $26,232.53 owing on a small business line of credit to the respondent bank.

The appellant argued that the bank had verbally promised not to close the account, that the bank treated her unfairly due to her disability, and that the rules of civil procedure violated her Charter rights.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the bank had a contractual right to demand repayment, the requirements for promissory estoppel were not met, and the Charter does not apply to private corporations or provide a defence to a legal debt.

The appellant brought a proposed class action against her former lawyer and his firm, alleging they took unauthorized fees, failed to obtain required court approval, and charged illegal interest rates on disbursements under invalid contingency fee agreements.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding the common issue and preferable procedure criteria were not met.

On appeal, the Divisional Court allowed the appeal and certified the class proceeding, finding the motion judge erred in his interpretation of the Solicitors Act and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure to address the common issues.

Following the settlement and abandonment of an application for judicial review regarding the Crown's duty to consult, the interveners and the respondent Ontario Power Authority sought costs against the applicants.

The Divisional Court dismissed the requests for costs.

The court held that interveners typically do not receive costs and that imposing costs on First Nations in disputes concerning constitutional rights and reconciliation would inappropriately deter such claims.

The court also denied costs to the Ontario Power Authority, noting it played a secondary role and the Crown itself did not seek costs.

The plaintiff sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a summary judgment decision that denied his claim for damages in lieu of bonus payments following his wrongful dismissal.

The plaintiff's counsel had inadvertently missed the appeal deadline due to a misunderstanding of the rules.

Applying the test for extending time, the court found that the plaintiff had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was reasonably explained by solicitor error, there was no prejudice to the defendant, and the proposed appeal had sufficient merit.

The court granted the extension of time and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting judgment to the respondent for an unpaid loan of $15,000.

The trial judge found the corporate appellants liable for breach of contract and the individual appellants liable for unjust enrichment.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge erred in finding personal liability, drawing an adverse inference from a failure to testify, and using pleadings to assess credibility.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error, noting that the trial judge's credibility assessments and use of pleadings were reasonable and legally correct.

The appellants appealed an order enforcing a mediated settlement agreement, arguing the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction, Rule 49.09 did not apply to minutes of settlement, and the settlement was signed under duress and was unconscionable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it had jurisdiction because the settlement and counterclaim amounts were under $50,000.

The court held that Rule 49.09 applies to minutes of settlement and found no evidence of duress or unconscionability, noting the individual appellant's subsequent actions affirmed the settlement and his choice to proceed unrepresented did not invalidate the agreement.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to dismiss the applicant tenant's appeal for delay.

The applicant had previously sought relief from forfeiture after the respondent terminated the commercial lease for unpaid rent, but the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a notice of appeal but failed to perfect the appeal within the required time.

Applying the factors for an extension of time to appeal, the court found no explanation for the delay, prejudice to the respondent who was not receiving rent, and no merit to the proposed appeal.

The motion was granted and the appeal was dismissed for delay.

The moving party sought leave to appeal two interlocutory orders: one dismissing her summary judgment motion and awarding costs, and another dismissing her motion to set aside that costs order.

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

The court found that the moving party failed to establish conflicting decisions, reason to doubt the correctness of the orders, or matters of general importance.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs appealed an order dismissing their action for delay following a status hearing.

The action arose from alleged property damage during a swimming pool cleaning.

The Divisional Court found that the Master erred in her application of the test for dismissal for delay by failing to consider the overall context of the litigation, incorrectly identifying the period of delay, and mechanically applying a presumption of prejudice.

The appeal was allowed, the dismissal order was set aside, and the action was ordered to proceed to mediation and trial.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order staying his action until he paid outstanding costs orders.

The court reviewed the strict test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) and found no conflicting decisions or reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

The motion judge had properly exercised discretion under Rules 57.03(1) and 60.12, noting the applicant's lack of reasonable explanation for non-payment and the weak merits of the action.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering them to pay damages for a defectively installed engineered hardwood floor.

The floor buckled because it was glued at the edges without T-moldings, contrary to standard practice, though the respondent had insisted on this installation method.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Justice's conclusions that the appellants bore the contractual risk, that the Consumer Protection Act applied, and that the individual appellant was personally liable under the contract.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $25,000 in damages and $7,500 in costs, payable jointly and severally by the appellants and their lawyer.

The appellants argued the deputy judge should have recused himself due to bias, the costs were excessive, and costs should not have been awarded against counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the damages and the quantum of costs, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and no error in the costs assessment.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding costs against the appellants' lawyer, finding he was not given sufficient notice under Rule 57.07.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering the return of a $16,000 deposit to the respondent purchaser in an aborted condominium real estate transaction.

The purchaser had refused to close after reviewing the status certificate, which revealed a special assessment and higher common expenses than warranted in the agreement of purchase and sale.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the purchaser was legally justified in refusing to close due to the non-satisfaction of a condition precedent regarding the status certificate, as well as the vendor's misrepresentation regarding the absence of special assessments.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion, the applicant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the written submissions and applied the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding the requested hours and rates reasonable, the court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $8,963.38.