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 the decision of McPherson J. dated April 5, 2024.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,500.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with no costs by agreement.
The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Glustein J. dated April 19, 2024.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.
In accordance with the parties' agreement, no costs were awarded.
The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Ferguson J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $3,390.
Motion for leave to appeal withdrawn on consent without costs.
The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.
On consent of the parties, the motion for leave to appeal was withdrawn without costs.
Security for costs of appeal granted where corporate appellant had insufficient assets and weak appeal grounds.
The respondents brought a motion for security for costs of an appeal regarding a proposal to locate a homeless shelter.
The appellant, a corporation, admitted it had insufficient assets to pay costs but did not claim impecuniosity.
The court assessed the merits of the appeal, finding the grounds relating to prematurity and the rejection of expert evidence on domestic law to be weak.
Considering the holistic factors and the justice of the case, the court ordered the appellant to pay $7,500 into court as security for costs.
Motion for extension of time to seek judicial review dismissed for lack of merit and delay.
The self-represented applicant sought an extension of time to bring an application for judicial review of multiple administrative tribunal decisions stemming from a failed car sale in 2019.
The court dismissed the motion, finding no merit in the applicant's claims, which were based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and concluding that the applicant failed to prove that the respondents would not suffer prejudice from the five-year delay.
The court also raised concerns that the proceedings were frivolous and vexatious, and invited submissions on whether the applicant's fee waiver should be cancelled.
Appeal from Small Claims Court quashed because leave is required to appeal a consent order.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed her motion to set aside a prior consent dismissal order.
The respondents moved to dismiss the appeal for delay.
The Divisional Court found that the appellant could not appeal a consent order without leave under s. 133(a) of the Courts of Justice Act.
Furthermore, the order dismissing the motion to set aside the consent order was interlocutory, not final, and therefore could not be appealed to the Divisional Court under s. 31 of the Courts of Justice Act.
The appeal was quashed without costs.
Stay of prompt payment adjudication granted on condition that the moving party pay $700,000 into court.
The applicant moved for a stay of a prompt payment adjudication order under the Construction Act requiring it to pay approximately $685,000 to the respondent, pending an application for judicial review.
The respondent consented to the stay on the condition that the full amount be paid into court.
The applicant argued against this condition, citing irreparable harm and balance of convenience.
The Divisional Court found that the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm if the money was paid into court, and the balance of convenience strongly favoured requiring payment into court.
The stay was granted on the condition that the applicant pay $700,000 into court.
Motion for extension of time to appeal a $100 Small Claims Court costs order dismissed.
The moving parties sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal a Small Claims Court order that denied their motion to set aside a default judgment and awarded $100 in costs against them.
The moving parties argued the appeal was solely regarding costs under s. 133 of the Courts of Justice Act.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, noting that under s. 31 of the Courts of Justice Act and O. Reg. 626/00, no appeal lies from a Small Claims Court order for less than the prescribed amount of $3,500, which also applies to costs orders.
Motion to review dismissed under Rule 2.1 due to unexplained delay and failure to comply with orders.
The moving party sought to review a judge's direction refusing to schedule a motion to extend the time for judicial review of an Information and Privacy Commissioner decision.
The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, considering dismissing the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process due to the moving party's lengthy, unexplained delay and failure to comply with previous court orders.
Finding that the moving party failed to adequately explain the delay or demonstrate arguable merit in the underlying application, the court dismissed the motion to review.
Appeal dismissed; late motion to appoint new representative plaintiff in decertified class action was abuse of process.
The appellant appealed a decision dismissing a motion to appoint a new representative plaintiff and recertify a class proceeding.
The motion judge had previously decertified the action after the original representative plaintiff was found unsuitable and class counsel failed to find a replacement within the allotted 60 days.
Almost two years later, class counsel brought a motion to appoint a new representative plaintiff.
The motion judge dismissed the motion as an abuse of process, finding it amounted to relitigation and raised concerns about the lack of a costs indemnity agreement.
The Divisional Court upheld the decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's application of the abuse of process doctrine or his factual findings.
The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated February 28, 2022.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding parties.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $3,500.
The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Czutrin J. dated January 24, 2022.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $3,500.
Divisional Court lacks jurisdiction under the LAT Act to hear appeals from interlocutory LAT decisions.
The appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) that denied her motion to remove the respondent insurer's lawyer for an alleged conflict of interest.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
The Court held that section 11 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999 only permits appeals from final decisions, not interlocutory ones.
In doing so, the Court declined to follow recent Divisional Court decisions that suggested the Court had discretion to hear interlocutory appeals in exceptional circumstances, reaffirming older jurisprudence that statutory appeal rights must be strictly construed.
Appeal dismissed; appellant was a partner and therefore an owner ineligible to register a construction lien.
The appellant appealed an order discharging a Claim for Lien and vacating a Certificate of Action registered against a property.
The motions judge had found that the appellant was a partner in the property development, making him an 'owner' under the Construction Lien Act rather than a 'contractor', and therefore ineligible to register a lien against his own property.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied the test for partnership and relied on relevant evidence.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $6,500.
The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Daley J. dated April 12, 2022.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $6,500.
Notice of Appeal struck out as abuse of process; vexatious litigant failed to obtain leave.
The appellant, a declared vexatious litigant, filed a Notice of Appeal from three interlocutory orders regarding his application to construct a religious memorial on his mother's grave.
The Divisional Court reviewed the Notice of Appeal under Rule 2.1.01 and struck it out as an abuse of process, noting that the orders were interlocutory and required leave to appeal, and that the appellant had failed to obtain leave to proceed under section 140(3) of the Courts of Justice Act.
Tribunal adjudicator reconsidering their own decision does not violate procedural fairness or raise apprehension of bias.
The appellant appealed two decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal regarding statutory accident benefits.
In the first appeal, the appellant argued that an adjudicator reconsidering their own decision violated procedural fairness.
In the second appeal, the appellant argued that the Tribunal's withdrawal of a decision mistakenly rendered by an adjudicator who did not hear the oral evidence created a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Divisional Court dismissed both appeals, finding that the Tribunal's reconsideration process is procedurally fair and that correcting an administrative error by withdrawing the mistaken decision and having the correct adjudicator issue a new one cured any procedural defect without raising a reasonable apprehension of bias.
Appeal regarding $100,000 in misappropriated estate funds transferred to Court of Appeal for lack of monetary jurisdiction.
The appellant, acting as estate trustee, appealed a decision dismissing an application for a declaration that the respondent improperly took approximately $100,000 from the deceased.
At the hearing, the Divisional Court raised the issue of monetary jurisdiction, noting the amount in dispute exceeded its jurisdiction and did not fall under the Estates Act.
The self-represented appellant requested the appeal be transferred to the Court of Appeal.
Finding an arguable case on the merits and no prejudice to the non-attending respondent, the court ordered the appeal transferred to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act.
Appeal dismissed; portions of statements of defence struck for improperly pleading communications protected by settlement privilege.
The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision striking out portions of their statements of defence.
The impugned pleadings referred to documents and communications from a judicial mediation, which the motion judge found were prima facie protected by settlement privilege.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge correctly applied Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court affirmed that the respondents had not waived settlement privilege and that the justice of the case did not require an exception to allow the appellants to plead the privileged information to defend against breach of fiduciary duty claims.
Page 72
