Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The appellant appealed an order dismissing her request to remove the court-appointed Liquidator of a corporation and approving the Liquidator's accounts.

The appellant argued the Liquidator was improperly aligned with the respondent Estate and that the motion judge should have drawn an adverse inference from the lack of evidence explaining communications between them.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings or his refusal to draw an adverse inference, and upheld the approval of the accounts.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

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

Costs were fixed at $2,500 payable forthwith to the responding construction company.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated March 22, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no order as to costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of O'Bonsawin J. dated November 23, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement.

The moving party was ordered to pay costs of $2,500 to the responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of D.L. Edwards J. dated February 4, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs in the amount of $2,700 all inclusive.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of I.R. Smith J. dated February 25, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs in the amount of $5,000.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision and a reconsideration decision denying her claim for accident benefits for chiropractic treatment.

She argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness and failed to provide sufficient reasons by not explicitly referring to a medical report from her orthopedic surgeon.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that an adjudicator is not required to refer to every piece of evidence in their reasons, and the reasons provided were detailed and demonstrated a firm grasp of the evidentiary record.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Price J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the order of Tranquilli J. dated January 14, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $7,857.16.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated March 14, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $3,000 to the responding party.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Associate Justice C. Wiebe.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $2,667.93 to the responding party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Lafrenière J. dated January 21, 2022.

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

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to confirm an Associate Justice's order that enforced a default payment provision of $286,061.10 under a settlement agreement.

The respondent's late payment was due to junior counsel being distracted by her wedding and honeymoon.

The Divisional Court found no error in the motions judge's conclusion that the Associate Justice erred in enforcing the default provision.

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

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dated January 28, 2022.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of the leave motion were fixed at $2,500 on consent, payable at the discretion of the panel hearing the appeal.

The self-represented moving party sought leave to appeal multiple orders.

The court allowed the motion for leave to appeal a 2020 costs order to proceed.

However, the court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal a 2021 order as moot and an abuse of process, noting the moving party's abusive behavior towards court staff and relentless, meritless appeals.

The moving party's motion for the case management judge's recusal was also dismissed as moot.

The applicant brought a motion to add items to the record of his application for judicial review, to require an unredacted record, and to cross-examine the respondent's staff member.

The court dismissed the motion to adduce new evidence not before the decision-maker, except for one document admitted on consent.

The request for an unredacted record was dismissed with directions provided for handling privacy redactions.

The request to cross-examine the staff member was dismissed as it is expressly precluded by the Police Services Act.

The plaintiff obtained a default judgment against the defendants after a series of procedural irregularities and without notifying the defendants' counsel, despite knowing the defendants were represented.

One of the key defendants subsequently died.

The defendants successfully moved to set aside the default judgment but their motion to dismiss the action for delay was denied.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the setting aside of the default judgment due to the plaintiff's counsel's sharp practice.

The Court allowed the defendants' appeal and dismissed the action for delay, finding the 11-year delay was inordinate, inexcusable, and caused substantial prejudice to the defendants due to the death of the key defendant.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Judicial Council, which had refused to consider his complaint against the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice.

The applicant alleged the Chief Justice committed misconduct by failing to act on his request to initiate criminal proceedings against a federal corrections official.

The court initiated a summary dismissal process under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

After dismissing the applicant's allegations of judicial bias, the court dismissed the application for judicial review as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that the Ontario Judicial Council has no jurisdiction over core judicial decision-making.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their claim for breach of an oral agreement and unjust enrichment regarding a condominium assignment.

The trial judge had dismissed the claim on a motion for non-suit after the appellants closed their case.

The Divisional Court found that while the Small Claims Court has jurisdiction to hear non-suit motions, the trial judge erred in law by applying a balance of probabilities test instead of assessing whether a prima facie case was made.

However, the court declined to order a new trial, instead exercising its power under the Courts of Justice Act to substitute its own decision.

The court agreed with the trial judge's factual findings that the oral contract lacked certainty and the written assignment agreement provided a juristic reason for any enrichment, ultimately dismissing the appellants' claim.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 5, 2021.

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.