Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The applicants, property owners along Erie Shore Drive, appealed a decision of the Acting Drainage Referee regarding preliminary issues in their application for damages against the municipality for failing to maintain and repair the Burk Drainage Works.

The municipality cross-appealed the Referee's finding that section 79 of the Drainage Act is a strict liability provision.

The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the Referee's findings that the applicants' initial notice was insufficient, that damages are limited to those occurring 45 days after proper notice is given, that historical seawalls had been lawfully replaced rather than abandoned, and that section 79 imposes strict liability without requiring proof of common law injurious affection.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the unreported decision of Kumaranayake J. dated December 31, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Koehnen J. dated March 19, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion in a brief endorsement and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior costs decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The appellant contractor appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent subcontractor $852,416.50 for dewatering services and extra work on a municipal roadworks project.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by admitting hearsay documents as business records and by inferring that the appellant had authorized the extra work by submitting the claims to the project owner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the business records exception under the Evidence Act and made factual findings supported by the voluminous record.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision regarding the production of documents and removal of counsel.

The Divisional Court granted leave in part, noting conflicting jurisprudence on whether the intent to commit civil fraud vitiates solicitor-client privilege, and similar issues regarding documents photographed in breach of privacy.

Leave to appeal the refusal to remove the wife's lawyer as counsel of record was denied.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $7,700 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Penny J. dated March 24, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The appellant sought judicial review and appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing his application for Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) as statute-barred.

The LAT found that the insurer's May 3, 2021 letter constituted a clear and unequivocal denial of benefits, triggering the two-year limitation period under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court upheld the LAT's decision, finding no error in its application of the limitation period or its refusal to extend the time to appeal.

The court also rejected the appellant's arguments regarding discoverability and the impact of subsequent correspondence from the insurer.

The appellant was successful on an appeal to set aside a noting in default in a slip and fall action.

The court assessed costs for the appeal and the motion below.

The respondent argued against costs, citing partial success, unreasonableness of the amount, and his impecuniosity as a recipient of social assistance.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the appellant was the successful party and the claimed costs were reasonable.

The court declined to consider impecuniosity due to insufficient evidence of the respondent's financial circumstances.

The appellant was awarded $5,764.38 in partial indemnity costs for the appeal, but no costs for the motion below.

The self-represented appellant appealed an associate judge's interlocutory order that restored his motor vehicle accident action to the trial list and dismissed his motion for disclosure of a defence interpreter's emergency contact information.

The court reconstituted itself as a sitting of the Superior Court of Justice to cure a jurisdictional defect.

The court found no error in the motion judge's refusal to order disclosure from a non-party or in the decision to restore the administratively dismissed action to the trial list.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent on a near substantial indemnity basis due to the appellant's unfounded allegations of fraud and perjury against the motion judge and opposing counsel.

The applicant commenced a second application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) seeking over $100 million in damages against her insurer, adjusters, and health professionals for alleged tortious conduct related to her statutory accident benefits (SABS) claim.

The LAT declined to process the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to award damages or make orders against non-insurer parties.

The applicant sought judicial review and appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Court dismissed the proceedings under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, holding that the LAT is a statutory body without jurisdiction to award general or non-compensatory damages, and that the proceedings constituted an abuse of process and an impermissible collateral attack on a prior final LAT decision regarding her SABS.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion in the Superior Court of Justice seeking to appeal a case conference endorsement issued by a judge of the Divisional Court.

The appellant also requested an adjournment to submit new evidence of alleged fraud by the Landlord and Tenant Board, and argued he was not properly served with the respondents' motion materials because the email did not address him correctly.

The court denied the adjournment and found service was valid.

The motion was dismissed on the basis that a judge of the Superior Court has no jurisdiction under section 21 of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside or vary a case conference endorsement made by a judge of the Divisional Court.

The applicant/appellant commenced a second application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) seeking damages and declaratory relief against her insurer and various non-insurer parties for alleged tortious conduct related to her statutory accident benefits (SABS) claims.

The LAT dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting it had no authority to award damages or make orders against non-insurers.

The applicant/appellant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and subsequently dismissed the proceedings as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, finding that the LAT lacks statutory jurisdiction to grant the requested relief and that the proceedings were an impermissible collateral attack on a prior final LAT decision.

The appellant employee commenced a Small Claims Court action for wrongful dismissal against the individual owners of his former employer.

After the two-year limitation period expired, he amended his claim to add the corporate employer as a defendant.

The Deputy Judge dismissed the claim against the corporate employer as statute-barred.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the appellant knew or ought to have known of his claim against the corporate entity on the date of his termination.

The court also rejected the argument that adding the corporate defendant was merely correcting a misnomer.

The respondent and intervenor sought full indemnity costs of $43,706.71 following their success on an appeal brought by the appellant condominium corporation.

They argued that section 134(3) of the Condominium Act and the condominium declaration entitled them to full indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the request, finding that section 134(3) applies to applications, not statutory appeals, and the declaration's indemnification provisions did not apply to an appeal of a tribunal decision.

Costs were fixed at the previously agreed partial indemnity amount of $17,500.

The appellant seller appealed a Small Claims Court decision holding her liable for $28,600 in damages for negligent misrepresentation.

During a real estate bidding process, the appellant falsely represented to the respondent buyers that she had other registered offers, inducing them to increase their bid to $1.305 million.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings that the other offers were mere oral puffery and not valid registered offers.

The court also upheld the trial judge's damages assessment based on the loss of chance doctrine, and awarded $3,000 in costs to the self-represented respondents for their factum disbursement.

The plaintiffs sought costs after successfully opposing the defendants' motion to extend the time to appeal a Small Claims Court decision.

The plaintiffs requested partial indemnity costs of $17,081.81, arguing the defendants engaged in a pattern of delay.

The defendants argued for no costs or partial indemnity costs, citing divided success on a cross-motion to strike affidavit evidence.

The court awarded the plaintiffs their requested partial indemnity costs of $17,081.81, finding the amount reasonable and in accordance with Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant sought a stay of an order requiring him to attend a summary judgment motion, pending his motion for leave to appeal that order.

The defendant argued the motion judge erred by allowing the use of a Simplified Procedure form and demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the appeal lacked strength, the defendant would not suffer irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience did not favour a stay.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.