Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Casullo J. dated December 4, 2023.

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 an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the amount of $2,191.64.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding an outstanding credit card debt.

He argued that the respondent improperly obtained an order extending the time for service and that the claim was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the claim was issued within the limitation period and that the order extending time for service was an unappealable interlocutory order.

The court also noted the appellant's failure to attend the peremptory hearing and awarded costs of $10,000 to the respondent.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two previous orders.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $2,237.40.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Perell J. dated February 29, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $1,500.

The applicant, a school board trustee, brought motions to stay sanctions imposed against her by the respondent school board for violating its Trustee Code of Conduct, pending the hearing of her judicial review applications.

The sanctions included barring her from attending board and committee meetings and a public censure.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and granted the stay, finding that there were serious issues to be tried regarding the board's process and jurisdiction, that the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if barred from meetings she could never attend again, and that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant as her application would be largely moot if she served the sanctions before the hearing.

The applicant brought an unopposed motion for an extension of time to serve and file a Notice of Appeal from a Small Claims Court decision.

The delay was short, caused by counsel's inadvertence, and the applicant had formed a timely intention to appeal.

Finding no prejudice to the respondent, the court granted the motion and extended the time by 15 days.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Boswell J. dated January 24, 2024.

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

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an October 2023 order.

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

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondents damages for their arrest at a border crossing.

The Divisional Court raised the issue of its jurisdiction to hear the appeal under s. 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found that because the total damages awarded in each action exceeded $50,000 inclusive of prejudgment interest, the appeal exceeded the Divisional Court's monetary jurisdiction.

The appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The moving party brought a motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal and a motion for leave to appeal two orders.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $10,000 were awarded to the responding party.

The moving parties, RBC Insurance Agency Ltd. and Aviva General Insurance Company, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Glustein J. dated March 2, 2023.

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

The appellants, a motor vehicle dealer and its principal, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision revoking their registrations for breaching conditions and ungovernability.

A single judge of the Divisional Court dismissed their motion for a stay pending appeal.

The appellants brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside that order.

The Divisional Court panel dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's application of the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay.

The moving party brought a motion to strike portions of an affidavit tendered by the responding party in support of its motion for leave to appeal an adjudicator's decision.

The court noted that the typical practice is to have motions to strike heard at the same time as the primary motion.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, granted the responding party leave to amend its affidavit, and set a revised timetable for the leave motion, leaving any remaining disputes about the affidavit's content to the leave panel.

The self-represented appellant filed a motion for leave to appeal three Superior Court orders relating to costs and the discharge of construction liens.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the motion as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the appeals lacked merit, the appellant had over $125,000 in unpaid costs orders, and the litigation history demonstrated a clear abuse of process, the court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and barred further motions until all outstanding costs are paid.

Following an appeal that was allowed in part, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The appellant sought partial indemnity costs of approximately $59,600, while the respondent argued each party should bear their own costs.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Divisional Court awarded costs to the appellant fixed at $40,000 all inclusive.

The applicant, a tow truck driver subject to a mandatory lifetime weapons prohibition, was denied a tow certificate and a tow driver certificate under the Towing and Storage Safety and Enforcement Act, 2021.

He brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to prevent the enforcement of the certificate requirements against him pending his application for judicial review and a Charter challenge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried and the applicant would suffer irreparable harm, the balance of convenience favoured the respondent due to the strong public interest in enforcing legislation designed to protect public safety in the towing industry.

Following a successful appeal, the appellant sought costs for both the appeal and the motion below.

The Divisional Court awarded the agreed-upon costs of the appeal fixed at $20,000.

The court also reversed the lower court's costs order, awarding the appellant $15,000 for the motion below, with a reduction applied due to the appellant's late filing and failure to raise a key point at the initial hearing.

The appellants appealed a decision granting the respondent leave to bring a derivative action.

The appellants argued the motions judge applied the wrong burden of proof regarding good faith, erred in finding the action was in the corporation's best interest, and failed to consider whether an oppression remedy was more appropriate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motions judge's factual findings on good faith and the corporation's best interests.

The court also declined to consider the oppression remedy argument as it was not raised before the motions judge.

The moving parties brought a motion to vary an order dated August 25, 2023, and sought costs on a motion for leave to appeal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to vary the order and determined that no costs should be awarded on the motion for leave to appeal.