Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The moving parties (defendants) brought a motion to stay a production order issued by Perell J. pending the disposition of their appeal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion and ordered the stay.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of $2,500 to the defendant.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal as moot because in-person civil jury trials were anticipated to resume, and the action remained scheduled for October 2022.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the moving parties' right to re-submit the motion if circumstances prevented the trial from proceeding with a jury as scheduled.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for a 70% share of profits from a gaming table supply contract.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the agreement was for 30% of net profits, noting no palpable and overriding error in the credibility assessments.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to correct a mathematical error conceded by the respondent, as the trial judge failed to account for payments already made.

The appellant was penalized in costs for making unfounded allegations of fraud.

The appellant, a taxi driver, was assaulted by a passenger after exiting his vehicle to collect a fare.

He applied for statutory accident benefits, which were denied on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial, finding the purpose and causation tests were not met.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the issues raised were questions of mixed fact and law, not extricable errors of law, and the Tribunal made no error in its application of the legal tests.

The moving party defendants sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for summary judgment based on a limitation period defence.

The Divisional Court noted that although the motion judge made findings about the limitation period defence, there was no order in that regard, making the order interlocutory.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

In the absence of costs submissions from the responding parties, costs were fixed in the amount of $2,500 payable within 30 days.

The appellant, a statutory third party, appealed a motions judge's order refusing leave to serve and file a jury notice on behalf of the defendants, despite the plaintiff's consent.

The motions judge had cited pandemic-related court backlogs as the reason for refusal.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motions judge erred in law by failing to articulate the applicable test, failing to consider the overall context including companion actions with existing jury notices, and failing to consider whether the jury notice would actually cause delay.

Leave was granted to file the jury notice.

The appellants appealed an order determining the terms of a shotgun buy/sell agreement reached to settle oppression claims.

They argued the application judge erred by refusing to include a term requiring the corporation to indemnify one of the appellants for personal tax liability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the application judge's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of such an agreement and that the proposed term was not commercially reasonable.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal interlocutory orders in an ongoing estate litigation matter.

The court established an expedited case management schedule to decide the leave motion before the underlying motions were heard.

The applicant engaged in a vexatious campaign of emails, refusing to follow directions, challenging the court's process, and ultimately failing to serve and upload her motion materials by the deadline.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to comply with case management directions and warned her against further vexatious conduct.

The proposed intervenor, WIFN, brought a motion for leave to intervene as a party in an application between HDI and Ontario.

WIFN sought to intervene to contest HDI's claimed rights under the Nanfan Treaty, arguing that any court acknowledgment of such rights could prejudice WIFN's interests in future proceedings.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that WIFN had no interest in the substantive outcome of the procedural application and that adding WIFN would substantially delay and broaden the scope of the proceedings.

The court noted that WIFN's concerns were mitigated by HDI's voluntary amendment of its notice of application.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dated December 20, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to one responding party on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $5,000.

No costs were awarded to the other responding parties as no factum was filed.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the moving parties.

The proposed appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal concerning a pleading amendment, but granted leave to appeal concerning privilege and the real estate solicitor's file.

As success was divided, no costs were awarded.

The appellants brought a motion in writing to amend a previous decision of the Divisional Court, which had allowed their appeal but did not award costs of the underlying action due to a misunderstanding that they were not sought.

As no order had yet been issued or entered, the court remained seized under Rule 59.06(2)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court granted the motion, finding that the appellants were entitled to costs of the action based on their successful appeal, and awarded $25,000 in costs.

The self-represented appellant appealed an application judge's order enforcing an arbitral award that expelled him from the respondent union.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 considering dismissing the appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction, as appeals under the Arbitration Act lie to the Court of Appeal.

Furthermore, the appeal constituted an impermissible collateral attack on the underlying arbitral award, which the appellant had failed to challenge within the statutory timeframe.

The appeal was dismissed under Rule 2.1.01.

The defendants appealed a decision certifying a class action for intrusion upon seclusion.

The claim arose after a hospital nurse improperly accessed thousands of patient records to steal narcotics from an automated dispensing unit.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the certification order, finding that the nurse's fleeting access to limited health information for the sole purpose of stealing drugs did not meet the 'highly offensive' threshold required for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal the orders of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondents fixed at $2,000.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding them jointly and severally liable for $11,250 based on unjust enrichment after allegedly failing to deliver money to the respondent's relatives in Egypt.

The Divisional Court granted the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the Deputy Judge's reasons were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review because they failed to explain why contradictory evidence was resolved in the respondent's favour.

The court also found the Deputy Judge erred in law by admitting a bank document obtained through bribery without ensuring compliance with the rules of evidence, and made a palpable and overriding error by misapprehending the contents of a translated Egyptian police report.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment holding him liable for rent arrears and property damage.

The appellant had signed a residential lease for a friend but never occupied the unit.

He argued he was not a tenant, the lease was assigned, and the Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction because the Landlord and Tenant Board has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant was a tenant who failed to terminate the lease, and confirmed that the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction over claims for arrears and damages when the tenant is no longer in possession of the rental unit.