Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondents $10,000 plus interest and costs based on a promissory note.

The appellant argued the note was unenforceable, the claim was statute-barred, and the corporate defendant should not be liable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusions that the promissory note was valid, the limitation period had not expired, and both appellants were liable as makers of the note.

The plaintiff appealed an order dismissing her claim under Rule 2.1.01(1) to the Divisional Court.

The defendants requested the appeal be dismissed under the same rule.

The court quashed the appeal on its own motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the damages claimed exceeded the $50,000 limit for Divisional Court appeals under section 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The proper route of appeal was to the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed a decision of the License Appeal Tribunal which found that his injuries from a motor vehicle accident fell within the Minor Injury Guideline under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The adjudicator preferred the objective medical evidence of the respondent's experts over the self-reported evidence of the appellant's treating physicians, noting credibility issues with the appellant.

The Divisional Court held that the adjudicator properly applied the law and that the decision was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.

The applicant sought judicial review of the New Democratic Party's internal decision to reject his candidacy for the party's leadership.

The court first determined that it had jurisdiction to review the decision, finding that the selection of a major political party's leader has a sufficiently broad public impact to bring it within the realm of public law.

However, applying a reasonableness standard, the court upheld the National Director's decision to reject the applicant, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and concluding that the party was entitled to broad discretion in vetting its leadership candidates.

The plaintiff appealed a Small Claims Court order that dismissed its claim for an unpaid credit card debt.

The motion judge had dismissed the claim on her own initiative, without notice or submissions, on the basis that it was barred by the limitation period.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the judge failed to follow the mandatory notice and submission requirements under Rule 12.02 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court.

The matter was remitted back to the Small Claims Court for trial.

The appellant, a foreign corporation, appealed a Master's order dismissing its motion to strike service outside Ontario and stay the action.

The plaintiff alleged the appellant induced a former employee to breach her contract and engaged in conspiracy.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's finding that the Ontario court had jurisdiction simpliciter, as the plaintiff established a good arguable case that the torts were committed in Ontario and a contract connected with the dispute was made in Ontario.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal from a Master's decision, the successful police respondents sought costs.

The Crown did not seek costs.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1), noting the appellants had claimed $40 million in damages and made serious allegations against the police in a factually complex action.

The court awarded the police respondents $4,000 in costs, representing a reasonable reduction from their partial indemnity costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision striking out his statement of claim with leave to amend and staying the proceeding pending related litigation.

The court found no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, noting that pleadings motions rarely warrant appellate review.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the responding party on a substantial indemnity basis due to the moving party making unfounded and serious allegations of improper conduct against opposing counsel.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her defamation claim against a hotel and its night manager.

The claim arose from a log entry made by the manager describing the appellant and her husband as 'very intoxicated' and belligerent during a late-night dispute over a hotel room.

The trial judge found that while the appellant was not intoxicated, the description of her belligerent behaviour was justified and the log entry was protected by qualified privilege.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's conclusions on justification, qualified privilege, and the absence of malice.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's damages award in an undefended defamation action involving statements made by his nephew on Facebook.

The appellant sought $1,000,000 in damages, arguing the trial judge's award of $30,000 in general and aggravated damages was too low.

The Divisional Court dismissed the substantive appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable or overriding error and the award was within the appropriate range for personal defamation.

The appeal was allowed only to rectify typographical errors in the formal judgment to reflect the trial judge's actual award and to add pre-judgment interest.

The applicant sought a stay of conduct and reinstatement proceedings before the Law Society Tribunal pending her application for judicial review of several interlocutory rulings.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify intervening in ongoing administrative proceedings.

The court noted the availability of an adequate alternative remedy through the internal appeal structure and found that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the disciplinary process to proceed in the public interest.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order that found they breached a settlement agreement regarding trademark infringement and directed a reference to fix damages.

The Divisional Court raised the issue of its jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court held that under s. 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act, an order directing a reference for damages where the claim exceeds $50,000 does not fall within the Divisional Court's monetary jurisdiction.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction and transferred to the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to repay $10,550 to the respondents.

The respondents had provided the funds to the appellant to post a bond for their brother's release from a U.S. detention centre.

When the U.S. Treasury reimbursed the appellant, he retained the funds, claiming they were for other expenses.

The Deputy Judge found the appellant was unjustly enriched and ordered repayment.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no error in the application of the test for unjust enrichment and no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant brought a motion to expedite his appeal of an order dismissing his application for the production of corporate records.

The respondents brought a cross-motion to stay the appeal pending the outcome of a related trial appeal.

The court found that the appellant's grounds for expediting the appeal, including seeking documents to potentially argue for a different valuation date, were unpersuasive and amounted to a fishing expedition.

The court also found the respondents' grounds for a stay insufficient.

Both the motion and cross-motion were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court order declaring that the parties had not settled the underlying action for non-payment of furnace equipment.

The appellant argued the Deputy Judge erred in finding there was no meeting of the minds regarding the settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding an evidentiary basis for the Deputy Judge's conclusion that the parties had not agreed on a material term regarding the timing of payment and receipt of documents.

The court also found the Deputy Judge's brief reasons were adequate for the Small Claims Court context.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion to disqualify the applicant's lawyers and seal the motion record.

The motion judge had found that the moving parties waived confidentiality by placing the purportedly confidential material in the public motion record.

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 conclusion on waiver of privilege.

The appellants built an addition to their home without a building permit.

After years of litigation, the City obtained an order under the Building Code Act authorizing an inspection of the addition.

The appellants appealed, arguing that the inspection would violate the section 7 Charter rights of the elderly parents living in the home.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the inspection would endanger the parents' lives and noting that the City was fulfilling its statutory duty to ensure public safety.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking his claim against the respondents for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The appellant had sued for damages related to extra expenses and lost income after failing his truck driving test multiple times, disputing specific instructions in the Ministry of Transportation Truck Handbook.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Deputy Judge made no error of law in concluding the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, even when read generously.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order refusing their motion for summary judgment regarding a building loss claim.

The motions judge had concluded that summary judgment was not a proportionate means to achieve a just result, as the claim involved issues requiring the weighing of evidence and assessment of credibility, including the application of a covenant to insure.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the moving parties failed to satisfy either branch of the test under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their Small Claims Court action for damages to their vehicle caused by the respondents during restoration.

The trial judge dismissed the action mid-trial upon learning the appellants had traded the damaged vehicle to a third party, concluding the cause of action had disappeared.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the cause of action remained with the appellants as it had not been assigned, and that the trial judge erred in dismissing the claim without hearing all of the appellants' evidence.