Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Sharma J. dated February 7, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $3,500 to the responding party.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for water damage allegedly caused by the respondent's window installation.

The Deputy Judge found the appellant failed to prove causation or damages, and alternatively, that the claim was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings and no reviewable error in the Deputy Judge's discretionary award of double costs following an offer to settle.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from a lower court order.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of $2,500 awarded to the successful party on the appeal.

The parties were directed to settle an agreed schedule for the exchange of appeal materials.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 to each of the three responding parties, for a total of $9,000.

The appellant appealed two orders made by the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court found that the appellant failed to identify any errors in either of the orders.

The appeal was dismissed with no costs.

The appellant real estate agent appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering him to pay $4,920 for breaching an agreement to rebate 1% of his commission to the respondent purchaser.

The appellant argued he signed the agreement under duress and undue influence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility findings, which supported the conclusion that the appellant had choices and was not under duress.

The appellant landlord appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her claims for utility arrears, maintenance charges, and rent against the respondent tenant.

The parties had previously appeared before the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB), which issued a consent order declining jurisdiction over current claims but retaining jurisdiction over future invoices.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in law by failing to treat the LTB order as final and binding.

The court awarded the appellant $292 for utility arrears incurred prior to the LTB order, upheld the dismissal of the maintenance charges and older utility claims due to the limitation period, and awarded the appellant costs of the trial.

On an application for judicial review, a preliminary issue arose regarding the admissibility of two affidavits filed by the applicants containing evidence that was not before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The respondents objected to the admissibility of the affidavits, but no formal motion to strike or for leave to introduce the evidence had been brought.

The Divisional Court held that the onus is on the party seeking to file fresh evidence to bring a motion for leave in advance of the application.

The court adjourned the matter to permit the applicants to bring such a motion.

The self-represented appellants appealed a Rule 21 motion decision that dismissed their claim against a former police chief as statute-barred.

The appellants argued the limitation period began when they received less redacted police records, rather than the initially redacted records.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's conclusion that the appellants had sufficient facts to base their claim upon receiving the initial redacted records.

The appeal and the request for leave to appeal costs were dismissed.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal in the Divisional Court from a trial judgment dismissing her wrongful dismissal action.

The moving party had initially filed her appeal in the Court of Appeal, which quashed it for lack of jurisdiction after a seven-month delay during which her counsel ignored warnings about the jurisdictional error.

The Divisional Court applied the four-factor test for extending time and found no bona fide intention to appeal, no reasonable explanation for the excessive delay, and no merit to the proposed appeal.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant general contractor sued the respondent subcontractor for breach of contract after the respondent refused to commence work without an agreement for extra costs due to inaccurate tender documents.

The respondent counterclaimed for loss of profit and surveying costs.

The trial judge dismissed the appellant's claim and awarded damages to the respondent.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found that the substantial errors in the tender documents constituted a fundamental mistake that rendered the contract void.

Consequently, neither party was entitled to damages.

The appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the trial judgment in favour of the respondent.

Following the dismissal of the moving party's motions for leave to appeal and for a stay, the successful responding parties sought their costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The moving party failed to provide any costs submissions.

The court considered the principle of proportionality and the moving party's conduct which thwarted the bankruptcy trustee's mandate.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 for the trustee and $7,323.41 for the applicants, payable by the moving party.

The appellant moved for substantial indemnity costs and an order prohibiting the respondent from filing responding material after the respondent's cheques for costs, payable as a condition of an adjournment, were returned for insufficient funds.

The respondent's counsel had promptly replaced the cheques with a firm trust cheque once notified.

The court awarded $200 in costs for the inconvenience of the dishonoured cheques but dismissed the request to prohibit responding materials as premature.

The court noted the escalation of costs was due to a lack of professional courtesy and communication between counsel.

The respondent was awarded costs of the appeal fixed at $8,000 all-inclusive.

The court substantially reduced the quantum claimed because both parties failed to address the narrow single issue upon which the appeal was ultimately disposed, which was raised by the panel after the hearing.

A minor deduction was also made for potentially unrecoverable travel disbursements.

The plaintiff was successful on the main issue of a motion but unsuccessful on the leave issue.

The parties made written submissions on costs.

The defendant argued costs should be in the cause of the appeal and sought a reduction in quantum.

The court held there was no reason to deviate from the general rule that costs are payable within 30 days.

The court reduced the plaintiff's claimed costs to account for excessive time and the issue on which the plaintiff was unsuccessful, awarding costs of $6,349 all inclusive.

The moving party, a physician under investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, brought a motion to stay a stated case application initiated by the College pending the outcome of his separate application challenging the constitutionality of the College's investigative summons power.

The stated case application sought to compel the Chief of Police to comply with a summons for a Crown brief related to stayed criminal charges against the physician.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the College to proceed with its investigation in the public interest.

However, the court granted the physician leave to intervene as an added party in the stated case application on consent.

The defendant owner brought a motion pending the plaintiff's appeal of a construction lien trial judgment, seeking security for costs and the return of monies posted to vacate the lien.

The court held that leave under s. 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act is not required for appellate interlocutory motions.

The court dismissed the request to return the monies, noting the judgment was stayed pending appeal.

The court also dismissed the motion for security for costs under Rule 61.06, finding the owner failed to establish that the appeal was frivolous and vexatious or that the plaintiff lacked exigible assets, and found no special circumstances justifying an order under the residual discretion.

The appellants co-signed a bank loan for a third party who subsequently defaulted and declared bankruptcy.

The bank obtained judgment against the appellants at trial.

On appeal, the appellants argued the trial judge demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias and failed to properly assess conflicting evidence regarding their understanding of the loan documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no apprehension of bias and no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

However, the court granted judgment on the appellants' crossclaim against the primary borrower, which the trial judge had overlooked.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding a breach of contract for machining steel pieces.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in failing to award damages for a scrapped forging and in apportioning liability for extra honing based on the contract price between the parties rather than the reduced price negotiated with the customer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the first ground, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the damages evidence was insufficient.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part on the second ground, holding that the trial judge misapplied the law by not basing the apportionment on the appellant's loss of profits from its customer.

The respondent's cross-appeal on factual findings and costs was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claims for spousal support, a restraining order, and a $24,000 lump sum pursuant to a marriage contract.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction under section 19(1)(a) of the Courts of Justice Act because the total monetary value of the claims could not be ascertained to be under $25,000.

The court transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario pursuant to section 110 of the Courts of Justice Act.