Civil Litigation - Plaintiff cases from the Divisional Court
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
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 brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 16, 2024.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,000.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with $5,000 in costs to the responding party.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.
The court also directed the responding party to bring this endorsement and a prior case management direction to the attention of the judge hearing the upcoming application for directions.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed without costs.
The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Kristjanson J. dated August 31, 2023.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.
Judicial review of insurance appraisal award dismissed; umpire reasonably relied on actual measurements for square footage.
The applicant sought judicial review of an appraisal award made under s. 128 of the Insurance Act following the destruction of her cottage by fire.
The umpire determined the replacement cost based on the respondent insurer's appraiser's estimate of the cottage's square footage, which relied on actual post-fire measurements, rather than the applicant's appraiser's reliance on a pre-purchase valuation report.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the umpire's decision was reasonable and justified by the evidence, and awarded costs to the respondent.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 27, 2024.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.
As the responding party was not called upon to file materials, no costs were ordered.
Appeal from order denying leave to amend pleadings in libel action dismissed; issue estoppel applied.
The appellant appealed a decision denying him leave to amend his statement of claim in a libel action against the respondents.
The Divisional Court upheld the Associate Justice's decision, finding no error in the application of issue estoppel to prevent the addition of the appellant's professional corporation as a plaintiff, as a previous judge had already ruled the corporation had no tenable cause of action.
The court also upheld the refusal to allow scandalous and irrelevant paragraphs about a non-party, and the refusal to permit a claim for document production within the pleadings.
The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.
The defendants (appellants) brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of W.D. Newton J. dated August 28, 2023.
As the plaintiffs (respondents) did not file a Bill of Costs, the court made no order as to costs.
Motion for leave to appeal granted with no costs ordered.
The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.
Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, no costs were ordered.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs of $5,000 awarded to the respondent.
The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Fryer J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements to the responding party.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs of $5,000.
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.
Extension of time granted to appeal LAT merits decision despite procedural missteps in seeking reconsideration.
The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision that found she was not catastrophically impaired and denied her statutory accident benefits.
Following the LAT decision, the moving party attempted to seek a reconsideration but was denied an extension of time to do so, and subsequently denied a reconsideration of that denial.
The court clarified that only the original merits decision was a final order giving rise to a right of appeal to the Divisional Court.
Applying the test for an extension of time, the court found the moving party had a bona fide intention to appeal, provided an adequate explanation for the delay, and that the respondent suffered no real prejudice.
The court granted the extension of time to appeal the merits decision on specific terms.
Motion for leave to appeal denied with costs fixed at $5,000.
The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Myers J. dated February 25, 2022.
The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 all inclusive.
Motion for leave to appeal granted with costs fixed at $5,000.
The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Papageorgiou J. dated November 12, 2021.
The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicant fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.
Motion for leave to appeal granted with costs reserved to the hearing panel.
The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court order.
The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs of the leave motion to be determined by the hearing panel.
Motion for leave to appeal denied with costs fixed at $1,500.
The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.
The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $1,500 all-inclusive.
Appeal allowed and negligent investigation claim dismissed; expert evidence not required to establish reasonable and probable grounds.
The plaintiff sued the defendant police officers and their employer for negligent investigation after criminal charges of a sexual nature against him were withdrawn.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the motion judge dismissed on the basis that expert evidence was required to determine the standard of care and whether reasonable and probable grounds existed.
On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the motion judge erred in law; expert evidence is not required for a court to assess reasonable and probable grounds, as this is within the routine experience of a judge.
Finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds based on the complainant's statements, the court allowed the appeal, granted summary judgment, and dismissed the action.
Appeal dismissed; solicitor negligence action stayed as abuse of process pending exhaustion of Family Law Act remedies.
The appellant sued her former family lawyer for negligence, alleging the lawyer failed to properly advise her regarding spousal support and business valuations when negotiating a separation agreement.
The motion judge stayed the civil action as an abuse of process, ruling that the appellant must first attempt to set aside the separation agreement under the Family Law Act.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the Family Law Act is a complete code for spousal support claims and the civil system should not be used to circumvent the statutory regime governing matrimonial disputes.
Motion to set aside dismissal of appeal denied; case management judge had jurisdiction to dismiss for delay.
The appellant brought a motion before a panel of the Divisional Court to set aside the dismissal of his appeal by a case management judge.
The appeal had been dismissed for delay after the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with case management scheduling orders to perfect his appeal.
The panel dismissed the motion, finding that the case management judge had jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal without a formal motion, that filing an amended notice of appeal does not restart the time for perfection, and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.
Extension of time to appeal granted to self-represented litigants despite weak merits.
The moving parties sought an extension of time to appeal a decision dismissing their appeal of an Assessment Officer's decision regarding unpaid legal fees.
The moving parties, who were self-represented, argued that the delay was caused by illness and confusion over the appeal period.
Applying the four-factor test from Catalyst Capital Group, the court found that while the merits of the appeal were weak, the delay was not excessive and the interests of justice favoured granting the extension.
The motion for an extension of time was granted.
Page 70
