Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the amount of $1,500.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Boswell J. dated September 1, 2021.

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

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 appellant appealed a Master's decision refusing leave to amend his statement of claim to add third parties as defendants.

The Master found that the two-year limitation period had expired, as the appellant knew or ought to have known of the cause of action against the third parties when the original defendants delivered their statement of defence and third party claim.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no contested issue of fact or credibility regarding discoverability that required a trial, and the Master correctly decided the limitation issue on the pleadings motion.

Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion for security for costs of a pending appeal, the successful appellant sought costs of $12,255.13 on a partial indemnity basis.

The respondent argued the amount was excessive and sought to have costs fixed at $6,506.26, payable in any event of the cause.

The court found the appellant's claimed hours excessive given the lack of complexity and brevity of the materials, fixing costs at $7,500 inclusive.

The court declined to order costs payable in any event of the cause, applying the presumptive rule that interlocutory costs are payable within 30 days.

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 appellant brought a motion to extend the time to appeal two Small Claims Court judgments, citing severe health issues and medical treatments as the reason for the delay.

The respondent opposed the motion, highlighting the appellant's history of non-compliance with court orders and multiple adjournments.

The Divisional Court applied the test for extending time to appeal and found that the appellant failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit or any merit to the proposed appeals.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order dismissing her motion for leave to bring a partial summary judgment motion on liability and contributory negligence after the action had been set down for trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that the motions judge correctly applied the test under Rule 48.04 and that there was no conflicting decision or reason to doubt the correctness of the order.

The court agreed that a summary judgment motion would not provide a proportionate, more expeditious, or less expensive means to achieve a just result than a trial.

The Divisional Court issued a supplementary endorsement fixing the costs of the appeal.

Costs were fixed in the amount of $9,000 inclusive of disbursements, plus HST, payable forthwith by the respondents to the appellant.

Following a successful appeal by the respondents, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The respondents sought partial indemnity costs of $41,762.66, while the appellant sought substantial indemnity costs for a prior motion.

The Divisional Court ordered each party to bear its own costs of the motion and fixed the respondents' costs of the appeal at $20,000, finding the amount claimed to be beyond what was fair and reasonable.

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 appellants appealed the dismissal of their summary judgment motion regarding property damage allegedly caused by the negligent construction of neighbouring homes.

They argued the motions judge failed to apply the new, more flexible Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and provided inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court agreed the reasons were inadequate but upheld the dismissal, finding significant conflicting evidence regarding personal liability, independent contractor liability, and damages that required a trial.

The moving party sought an interim injunction to halt the demolition of houses pending the hearing of an interlocutory injunction.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party failed to establish irreparable harm, noting that pre-screening of the properties had found no snakes.

The court also found that the balance of convenience favoured the responding party, as the demolition plans had been public for some time and the moving party could have sought relief earlier.

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 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 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.