Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal a costs order and a subsequent order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $15,000 to the responding parties.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission brought a stated case to the Divisional Court to determine whether the Durham Regional Police Service had a lawful excuse for refusing to produce certain emails responsive to a summons.

The DRPS claimed the emails were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

After reviewing the emails, the court found they involved communications between senior members of the DRPS and their counsel related to the provision of legal advice.

The court held the emails were protected by solicitor-client privilege and the DRPS was justified in withholding them.

The appellant sought a stay pending appeal of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a motor vehicle salesperson.

The appellant's motion materials claimed he would suffer irreparable harm by losing his existing licence and livelihood.

However, the court found that the appellant had not been licensed for over two years and was applying for a new registration.

Because a stay would merely maintain the status quo of him being unlicensed, he could not establish irreparable harm.

The motion was dismissed, and the court noted serious concerns about the appellant's counsel misrepresenting facts in the motion materials.

The applicant moved for an interim stay of a statutory adjudicator's order requiring it to pay over $288,000 to the respondent, pending a motion for leave to seek judicial review based on allegations of fraud.

The court granted the interim stay on the condition that the applicant pay the full disputed amount into court, balancing the statutory goal of prompt payment with the need to secure funds pending the leave application.

The applicants sought judicial review of an umpire's appraisal award under s. 128 of the Insurance Act following a house fire.

They alleged procedural fairness violations, bias, and unreasonableness, citing the aggressive conduct of the insurer's appraiser and the umpire's independent site visit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that despite the insurer's appraiser's poor behavior, the applicants had a full opportunity to present their case.

The court held the umpire's process was fair, unbiased, and the resulting valuation was reasonable and intelligible.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of McGee J. dated March 6, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $4,200 payable to the responding party within thirty days.

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

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 30, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to seek judicial review of an adjudicator's determination.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave and directed the parties to schedule a case management teleconference to establish a schedule and fix the questions for review.

Costs of the leave motion were fixed at $5,000, payable in the discretion of the review panel.

The self-represented moving party in an estate administration dispute sought to appeal and judicially review an interlocutory order of a Superior Court judge.

The Divisional Court struck the application for judicial review, noting it lacks jurisdiction to review decisions of a Superior Court judge.

The court also struck the Notice of Appeal, as the underlying order was interlocutory and required leave to appeal.

The court stayed a paragraph of the underlying order that vaguely permitted the responding party to retrieve personal belongings, finding it unenforceable.

The court also clarified that provisions waiving privilege and confidentiality were subject to the rights of non-parties to raise objections.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded all-inclusive costs of $3,500 to the municipal respondent and $5,000 to the regional and corporate respondents, payable within 30 days.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of J.R. McCarthy J. dated December 22, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Myers J. dated March 2, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $1,095.99.

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

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and fixed the costs of the motion at $5,000, with the determination of entitlement reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 27, 2022.

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 an order and requested a stay.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the question of whether the motions judge erred in principle by relying on the responding party's evidence from an adjourned cross-motion without allowing the moving party an opportunity to respond.

The request for a stay was refused, and costs were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the order as issued and entered was not a final order.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal that dismissed his appeal of a zoning by-law without a hearing.

The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal on the basis that it did not disclose any apparent land use planning ground and failed to explain how the by-law was inconsistent with provincial policy or the official plan.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal provided sufficient reasons and made no error of law in applying the test for dismissing an appeal without a hearing under the Planning Act.

The moving party had failed to provide responding affidavit evidence or expert planning opinions to support his appeal grounds before the Tribunal.

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

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision that lifted a writ of execution against the respondent's property.

The motion judge found that the appellant's collection agent had agreed to settle the entire judgment debt of over $17,000 for a payment of $10,000, which the respondent paid.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error of fact or error of law in the motion judge's conclusions regarding the agent's authority to settle and the interpretation of the settlement agreement.

The appellants appealed a Master's order dismissing their motion to set aside a default judgment.

The Divisional Court found that while the Master failed to properly apply the four-part test for setting aside a default judgment, the record demonstrated that the appellants failed to move promptly and lacked a reasonable explanation for their delay.

The court assessed the proposed defence as weak and concluded that the interests of justice did not warrant setting aside the default judgment.

The appeal was dismissed.