Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of P. Boucher J. dated June 24, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were filed, no costs were awarded.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders and decisions of the lower court judge, as well as a motion for a stay pending appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The moving parties were ordered to pay costs of $1,300 for the leave motion and $700 for the stay motion to the responding parties.

The moving party, acting as estate trustee, brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated July 28, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of J.A. Ramsay J. dated July 4, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $4,320.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order made by Agarwal J. on May 1, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no parties filed submissions on costs, no costs were ordered.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion to review a case management judge's orders that required him to perfect his family law appeal and subsequently dismissed the appeal for his failure to do so.

During the case management of the review motion, the moving party repeatedly refused to follow court directions, sought sweeping substantive relief beyond the scope of the review, and engaged in relentless debates with the court.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and ultimately dismissed the review motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, while also restricting the moving party's future access to the Divisional Court.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision and costs endorsement of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $5,000 for the leave to appeal the costs award and $5,000 for the leave to appeal the judgment were awarded to the responding parties.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the motion judge was correct in concluding that the statement of claim in the fraudulent conveyance action was not before her at the hearing.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties for a transcript.

The appellant retained the respondents for an employment law matter and paid a $5,000 retainer.

Dissatisfied with the services, she terminated the retainer and later commenced a Small Claims Court action seeking the return of the funds, alleging she was overcharged.

The Small Claims Court struck the claim, finding it had no jurisdiction to assess or reduce legal fees.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the decision, confirming that disputes over legal fees must be addressed through the assessment process under the Solicitors Act, and found no error in the Deputy Judge's refusal to transfer the matter to the Assessment Office.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for unpaid flooring invoices on the basis that it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant argued the invoices were part of an ongoing construction contract and that the discoverability principle should apply.

The Divisional Court upheld the lower court's finding that there was no ongoing contract and that the invoices, which did not specify a payment date, were demand obligations.

The appeal was dismissed as the claim was commenced more than two years after the date of the last invoice.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by a Small Claims Court deputy judge regarding document production and costs.

The underlying action involved a rental car company suing the insurer after coverage was denied for a rental car accident due to the insured's failure to cooperate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no exceptional circumstances, excess of jurisdiction, or denial of natural justice that would warrant intervention in a Small Claims Court interlocutory order.

The matter was directed to proceed to trial where the trial judge would determine the admissibility of the subpoenaed documents.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court interlocutory order that required it to pay the proceeds of a vehicle sale into court as a condition of an adjournment.

The Divisional Court declined to grant relief, finding that the applicant's conduct in seeking judicial review was an unnecessary step that delayed the resolution of the underlying motion on its merits.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment in a mortgage enforcement action.

Prior to the appeal hearing, the appellants paid out the principal and interest, and the mortgage was discharged.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the appeal was moot.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding no live controversy and declining to exercise its discretion under the Borowski test to hear the moot appeal, as there were no collateral consequences or issues of broad public importance.

The appeal was quashed with no costs awarded.

The appellant, a federal public servant, appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking her defamation claim against a colleague for lack of jurisdiction.

The motion judge had ruled that the dispute fell within the exclusive grievance procedures of the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence and argued her legal representative provided ineffective assistance.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence and the appeal, confirming that the essential character of the dispute was employment-related and the statutory grievance process ousted the court's jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay his outstanding credit card debt of $16,211.82.

He argued the trial judge erred in denying his request for an adjournment, striking his statement of defence when he failed to return for trial, and providing insufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised her discretion in denying the adjournment and striking the defence after finding the appellant's medical excuses insincere.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's findings on liability or the sufficiency of her reasons.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her action for property damage to her parked vehicle.

The lower court had struck the claim on the basis that it was statute-barred under section 263 of the Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent was operating a backhoe at the time of the incident.

Applying binding appellate authority, the court held that a backhoe is not an 'automobile' within the meaning of section 224(1) of the Insurance Act.

The matter was remitted to the Small Claims Court for a determination on the merits.

The moving party sought leave to appeal and a stay of an interlocutory decision that set aside an ex parte order for a Certificate of Pending Litigation.

The court found that the moving party's underlying action was an impermissible collateral attack on a prior summary judgment decision regarding a defaulted mortgage.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and stay as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

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, noting that the responding party did not seek costs or file a costs outline.