Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision of Wilkinson J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed in the amount of $5,000.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory procedural order regarding amendments to a statement of claim.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering whether to dismiss the motion as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Noting the moving party's history of numerous dismissed proceedings and the fundamental flaws in the current motion, the court dismissed the proceeding under Rule 2.1.

The court also imposed terms requiring the moving party to obtain permission before commencing further proceedings or seeking fee waivers in the Divisional Court.

The appellants abandoned their appeal of an order appointing a liquidator to wind up their business.

The respondents sought $32,764.35 in costs for work done prior to the abandonment, despite not having filed a response to the appeal.

The court applied Rule 61.14(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that an abandoned appeal shall be without costs if no response was filed.

Noting that the respondents had already received costs for a related stay motion and failed to provide detailed time records distinguishing the work, the court declined to deviate from the general rule and awarded no costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal decision dismissing his claims against his employer and union.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure considering the dismissal of the applicant's claims against the Office of the Integrity Commissioner, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and its Commissioner, as they were not parties to the tribunal proceedings.

After reviewing the applicant's written submissions, the court found no legal basis obligating these bodies to intervene in his human rights claim.

The court dismissed the application solely against these three respondents as frivolous under Rule 2.1.01.

The appellant appealed an Associate Justice's decision granting the respondent's motion to strike her statement of defence.

The appellant did not attend the motion hearing because she was unable to access the CaseLines program to obtain the virtual hearing link.

The Divisional Court found that this constituted a denial of procedural fairness, as the appellant was denied a reasonable opportunity to participate.

The appeal was granted and the motion remitted for a new hearing.

The moving parties, including Chartwell Retirement Residences, Sienna Senior Living Inc., Extendicare Inc., and Schlegel Villages Inc., brought four motions for leave to appeal the decision of Morgan J. dated March 7, 2024.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of J.S. Richard J. dated April 5, 2024.

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

The moving party, a neighbourhood association, sought an extension of time to file an application for judicial review of a city council decision accepting a settlement proposal regarding a zoning by-law amendment and heritage designation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the initial delay in filing was explained, the delay in serving the motion caused significant prejudice to the developer who had relied on the settlement and subsequent Ontario Land Tribunal decision.

Furthermore, the court found no apparent grounds for relief, as the application was essentially a collateral attack on the unappealed tribunal decision.

The appellant brought a motion to stay an order granting the respondent a writ of possession and permission to sell the appellant's suite to collect approximately $140,000 in unpaid damages and costs.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found there was no serious issue to be tried, as the appeal was largely a collateral attack on previous unappealed orders.

The court also found a stay was not in the interests of justice given the appellant's history of ignoring court orders.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a notice of application for judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying motor vehicle accident benefits.

The moving party had previously discontinued an application for judicial review due to adverse case law that was later reversed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no apparent grounds for relief, as the causation issue had already been decided on appeal and the allegations of institutional bias lacked specifics.

The court also noted the lengthy delay and the principle of finality weighed against granting the extension.

The moving parties sought security for costs of an appeal brought by the responding party, who had been removed as a director and CEO of a closely-held technology company following a finding of oppressive conduct.

The moving parties argued the appeal was frivolous and vexatious, and that the responding party had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the appeal had a low prospect of success, it was not vexatious, and the moving parties failed to meet their evidentiary burden to show the responding party had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario brought a motion for substituted service of a notice of appeal and certificate respecting evidence on the respondent, the sole officer and director of a corporate licensee.

The appeal concerned a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding the proposed revocation of a liquor licence.

The court found that the Registrar had made comprehensive but unsuccessful efforts to serve the respondent personally and that the respondent was likely aware of the appeal.

The motion for substituted service was granted.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order requiring them to produce their former lawyers' file based on a deemed waiver of solicitor-client privilege.

The motion judge had found that the appellants waived privilege by pleading they signed a lease extension 'without legal advice', and that they could not 'unwaive' this privilege by subsequently amending their pleadings to remove that assertion.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge erred in law by failing to apply the test for deemed waiver to the amended pleadings, which no longer made the absence of legal advice a material issue.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order setting aside a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) and an interlocutory injunction regarding a $37 million real estate transaction.

The moving party requested a stay of the order to keep the CPL in place pending the leave motion.

To avoid the time and expense of a contested stay motion, the court used its case management powers to expedite the motion for leave to appeal and granted an interim stay, conditional upon the moving party providing a $5 million undertaking in damages.

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 costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.

The moving party, who is not a lawyer, brought a motion to be appointed as litigation guardian for the appellant, who allegedly suffers from a mental disability following a motor vehicle accident.

The court dismissed the motion because the moving party failed to file the required affidavit evidence and meet the other mandatory requirements under Rule 7.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court also stayed the underlying appeal pending evidence of who filed the notice of appeal and under what authority.

The defendants (appellants) brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of W.D. Newton J. dated August 28, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the plaintiffs (respondents) did not file a Bill of Costs, the court made no order as to costs.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 16, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the respondent.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Dietrich J. dated December 15, 2023.

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

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

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, no costs were ordered.