Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The appellant appealed a judgment ordering him to pay $386,443.15 for defaulting on a share purchase agreement.

The respondent had originally sought an oppression remedy against the corporation but amended the application to seek personal judgment against the appellant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the amendment did not constitute a new cause of action and was therefore not statute-barred.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that the judgment resulted in double recovery, noting the appellant continued to operate the company and the respondent undertook to return the share certificate upon satisfaction of the judgment.

The appellant physician appealed an interlocutory order granting the plaintiff leave to amend his Statement of Claim to add a novel claim in negligence against her.

The plaintiff alleged the physician owed him a duty of care when she provided psychiatric advice to a patient regarding the plaintiff, an unidentified third party.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding it plain and obvious that no prima facie duty of care existed due to a lack of proximity, and that residual policy considerations, including conflicting duties and the chilling effect on physicians, negated any such duty.

The appellant vendor appealed a Small Claims Court judgment limiting her damages for a failed condominium assignment transaction based on a mutual release.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in concluding the release was binding, as it lacked the required signature of the realtor, and erred in finding the appellant was estopped from challenging its validity.

The court set aside the trial judgment, recalculated the appellant's damages for the respondents' breach of contract, and awarded her a net sum of $10,911.90 from the deposit.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order for non-payment of rent.

The tenant argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because a Superior Court action regarding an aborted agreement of purchase and sale for the property was ongoing.

The Divisional Court held that the Board has exclusive jurisdiction over residential lease terminations and that the tenant was using the appeal process to live rent-free.

The court found the appeal to be frivolous, vexatious, and devoid of merit, and quashed the appeal, lifting the stay of eviction.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding them liable for breach of a sponsorship agreement.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings regarding the existence of the contract and the refusal to draw an adverse inference for failing to call a witness.

However, the court allowed the individual appellant's appeal, finding the trial judge erred in piercing the corporate veil to hold him personally liable, as there was no evidence the corporation was used for an improper purpose or that he agreed to personal liability.

The plaintiff appealed a motion judge's refusal to grant default judgment against two defendants who failed to defend a claim for unpaid private copying levies.

The motion judge had declined default judgment, citing an unpleaded allegation of fraud and requiring oral evidence of the quantity and nature of the blank media.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the statement of claim did not plead fraud and that the defendants were deemed to admit the pleaded facts regarding the quantity and nature of the media under Rule 19.02.

Default judgment was granted.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to extend the time to appeal a Small Claims Court order that dismissed its motion for summary judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that while the City met most of the test for an extension, the proposed appeal was patently without merit.

The underlying decision was interlocutory, and there is an absolute prohibition against appealing interlocutory decisions of the Small Claims Court.

The proposed interveners, former counsel to the appellants, brought a motion for leave to intervene as added parties in an appeal from the Ontario Securities Commission.

The appellants alleged ineffective assistance of counsel and sought a term prohibiting the interveners from appealing any future order made on the appeal.

The court declined to impose the restriction, holding that interveners added as parties under Rule 13.01(1) should generally enjoy the same rights of appeal as any other party regarding issues that directly affect them.

The appellant condominium corporation sought to appeal a Master's order denying leave to amend its statement of claim to add a structural engineering firm as a defendant.

The Master found the claim was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant knew of the water leakage issues and the engineering firm's involvement in the waterproofing design more than two years before seeking to add them to the action.

The court affirmed that certainty of liability is not required to trigger the limitation period, only prima facie grounds to infer responsibility.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion seeking extensions of time to appeal several previous orders, including costs orders and dismissals of her actions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the appeals on the merits, which properly lay to the Court of Appeal.

Furthermore, the court found the proposed appeals lacked merit and noted the plaintiff's history of initiating a proliferation of meritless lawsuits using fee waivers.

The court awarded costs to the defendants and ordered that the plaintiff take no further steps in any proceeding until all outstanding costs are paid.

Following the dismissal of an application for judicial review regarding autism funding, the respondent sought costs against the applicant's counsel personally.

The court found that the applicant's counsel had engaged in unreasonable conduct, including making baseless allegations of falsified records, failing to comply with undertakings, and causing unnecessary delays.

Applying the test under Rule 57.07, the court ordered the applicant's counsel to personally pay the respondent's costs, fixed at $50,000.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order setting aside a noting in default and default judgment, which was granted on the condition that he pay half the judgment amount into court.

The defendant argued there was good reason to doubt the correctness of the order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the condition was an exercise of the motion judge's discretion and the issue was not of sufficient importance to the public or the administration of justice to warrant leave to appeal.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a costs order made following a summary judgment motion regarding the closure of bank accounts.

The Divisional Court refused leave, finding that the motion judge made no error in principle and the costs award was not plainly wrong.

The motion judge appropriately considered the factors under Rule 57.01, including the importance of the issue, the applicant's voluminous written questions, and the parties' settlement offers.

The appellants sued the police and the Crown for negligence and other torts related to a criminal investigation and prosecution.

The action was administratively dismissed for delay by the Registrar.

The appellants unsuccessfully moved before a Master to set aside the dismissal.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the Master's application of the test to set aside an administrative dismissal, noting the appellants failed to adequately explain the delay, were not prompt in moving to set aside the order, and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the respondents.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, represented by her husband, sought the recusal of the presiding judge from a Divisional Court panel hearing a judicial review application.

The applicant alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias based primarily on comments made by the judge at the conclusion of the hearing, suggesting that the applicant would be better served by independent counsel.

The judge, with the concurrence of the other panel members, dismissed the recusal request, finding that the comments were made out of concern for the applicant's best interests and did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias when viewed in context.

The applicant insurer brought a motion for an immediate order of prohibition staying a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) proceeding pending judicial review.

The insurer sought judicial review of the LAT's decision to deny its requests to adjourn a written hearing regarding the respondent's entitlement to statutory accident benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the insurer failed to meet the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay, as there was no serious issue to be tried and no irreparable harm.

The court also held that the motion was premature, as it offended the general rule against judicial interference with ongoing administrative processes.

The defendants moved for a stay of an interlocutory injunction order pending the determination of their motion for leave to appeal.

The injunction restrained the defendants from competing against the plaintiff corporation and from using confidential information or soliciting clients.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay and found that the motion for leave to appeal was unlikely to succeed, the defendants would not suffer irreparable harm that could not be compensated in damages, and the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant insurer sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to compel the plaintiff to attend three defence medical examinations and a future care assessment.

The motion judge had denied the examinations due to the insurer's failure to comply with the rules regarding the delivery of expert reports prior to pre-trial conferences.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's exercise of discretion under section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision refusing to set aside an administrative dismissal for delay and refusing to add further defendants.

The Divisional Court found no error of legal principle or palpable and overriding error of fact in the Master's application of the four-part Reid test.

The Master had correctly concluded that the appellant failed to adequately explain the delay, failed to prove inadvertence, and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The City of Ottawa sought costs of a motion brought by the appellants to set aside an order refusing leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision.

The appellants argued they should be excused from paying costs as public interest litigants.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding that the motion to set aside was totally without merit and effectively sought to reargue the leave motion, which did not constitute public interest litigation.

Costs were awarded to the City of Ottawa fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis.