Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The appellant factoring company appealed a trial decision that dismissed its construction lien claim and found it jointly liable for damages caused by the contractor who abandoned the project.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings regarding the lack of authority to approve invoices.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge erred in using equitable and statutory set-off as a sword to award damages against the assignee factoring company that exceeded the value of its lien.

The damages award against the appellant was quashed.

The applicant brought a motion under Rule 39.03 to compel the examination of a Vice-President at Infrastructure Ontario in the context of an application for judicial review challenging the expropriation of its properties.

The applicant sought to supplement the record with evidence regarding the scope, rationale, and scheme of the expropriations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no reasonable evidentiary basis that the proposed witness participated in briefing the decision-maker, nor did the proposed topics fall within the limited exceptions for supplementing a record on judicial review.

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 awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Tzimas J. dated August 1, 2025.

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

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $1,582.

The plaintiff, a party under disability, sued his former lawyers for professional negligence regarding the handling of his accident benefits claim.

The defendants brought a motion to remove the plaintiff's current law firm as counsel of record, arguing a conflict of interest because a lawyer from that firm had sworn an affidavit approving a prior settlement and would likely be a key witness.

The motions judge dismissed the removal motion.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the decision and ordered the firm removed, finding the motions judge erred by failing to properly consider the scope of the conflict, the plaintiff's status as a party under disability, and the likelihood that the lawyer would be called as a witness.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated October 4, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

The issue of costs was left to the appeal panel.

The moving parties, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and McNeil Consumer Healthcare, Canada, brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of the lower court dated October 4, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with the issue of costs left to the appeal panel.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision finding that the Crown could not be compelled to answer questions on an examination for discovery in an action brought under the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, affirming binding Court of Appeal precedent that the Crown's privilege to refuse discovery can only be taken away by express statutory words.

The court also rejected the argument that the Crown had attorned to the court's jurisdiction for discovery purposes by defending the action and voluntarily participating in some discovery.

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 $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that the respondent insured was not barred by the two-year limitation period from claiming income replacement benefits.

The Tribunal had concluded that the insurer's termination letter was not a clear and unequivocal denial because it left open the possibility of future benefits upon submission of an updated disability certificate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's interpretation of the letter as ambiguous was both reasonable and correct.

The court also upheld the Tribunal's refusal to extend the time for the insurer's reconsideration request.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal the decision of Steele J. dated October 30, 2024.

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

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order enforcing a settlement agreement regarding the ownership of a trained service dog.

The appellants argued that the respondent failed to provide original ownership documentation, which they claimed was an essential term of the settlement, and that the agreement was signed under duress.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's interpretation that original documents were not required.

The court also rejected the appellants' procedural fairness arguments, noting they had voluntarily abandoned their duress claim and made a strategic decision not to call their former counsel.

The respondents failed to close a residential real estate transaction, and the appellants (vendors) sued for breach of contract.

At trial, the judge awarded damages based on an appraiser's assessment of fair market value rather than the actual resale price, finding the appellants failed to mitigate their damages.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by bypassing the resale price as the presumptive fair market value and by relying on expert evidence that exceeded the appraiser's qualifications regarding marketing practices.

The Court awarded damages based on the difference between the original contract price and the resale price, plus certain expenses and legal fees.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to extend the time for leave to appeal and a motion for leave to appeal the orders of Shin Doi J. The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the total amount of $8,575.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a Small Claims Court decision of a Deputy Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $1,711.95.

The appellant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and notified his insurer the next day that his vehicle sustained heavy damage.

He did not apply for statutory accident benefits until 17 months later, when he learned of his entitlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed his claim for failing to provide notice of his intention to apply for benefits within seven days under s. 32(1) of the SABS.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the LAT's decision, holding that the SABS is consumer protection legislation and that notifying the insurer of the accident itself satisfies the seven-day notice requirement, triggering the insurer's obligation to inquire about injuries and provide benefit information.

The tenant sought an extension of time to review an order that had dismissed her appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

Despite being granted multiple extensions and accommodations to file her motion materials, the tenant repeatedly failed to meet the court's deadlines.

The court dismissed the motion for an extension of time due to the tenant's delay and failure to abide by court directions, leaving the original dismissal of her appeal in place.

The moving party sought an extension of time under s. 71(2) of the Construction Act to appeal a judgment that declared his construction lien expired and cancelled a $1.212 million lien bond.

The moving party missed the 15-day appeal deadline by 12 days due to his former counsel's incorrect advice regarding the appeal period.

The Divisional Court granted the extension, finding that the moving party had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was minimal and reasonably explained, the respondent suffered no real prejudice, and the proposed appeal regarding the validity of the lien claim had arguable merit.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

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