Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The applicants (landlords) brought a motion for security for costs and judgment pending an appeal by the respondent (tenant) of an order terminating his tenancy and requiring payment of over $115,000 in rent arrears.

The respondent had continued to occupy the unit without paying rent and had no apparent assets in Ontario.

The Divisional Court found the appeal appeared frivolous and vexatious, and that the ongoing overholding without rent payment constituted exceptional circumstances justifying security for judgment.

The respondent was ordered to post $143,886.87 in security and pay ongoing monthly rent, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering them to pay $25,000 to the respondents for their share of expenses in a joint venture to buy and sell gold.

On appeal, the appellants argued the deputy judge erred in assuming jurisdiction, assessing the parties' financial contributions, and determining a party's standing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact, and refused to admit fresh evidence that could have been presented at trial.

The appellant sought to appeal an order dismissing his motion for summary judgment.

The Divisional Court held that an order dismissing a motion for summary judgment is interlocutory, not final, and therefore requires leave to appeal under the Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court declined to grant leave, finding no conflicting decisions or good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's order.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant brought a motion to set aside an order quashing nine judicial review applications on the basis that it lacked public interest standing.

The Divisional Court panel found no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's application of the test for public interest standing.

The motion judge correctly concluded that the applications did not raise a serious justiciable issue transcending specific individual interests and that judicial review was not a reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the courts.

The motion was dismissed with no order as to costs.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a motion judge's decision.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on two specific questions: whether the motion judge erred in ordering that the joint retainer of the accountant continue, and whether the motion judge erred in ordering the production of documents under the retainer agreement.

Leave to appeal was otherwise dismissed, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant, a self-represented lawyer, appealed a Small Claims Court deputy judge's costs award of $3,772.24 against him.

The deputy judge had found 'special circumstances' under Rule 15.07 of the Small Claims Court Rules to award costs exceeding the $100 limit for a motion, concluding the claim was an abuse of process.

In these additional reasons, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal of the costs award, finding no error in principle.

The court noted that while it might not have allowed certain disbursements, the claim was completely lacking a reasonable foundation and the overall costs amount was proportional and reasonable.

The City of Ottawa appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding it liable for damages after a patron verbally harassed the respondent at a City pool and the respondent's vehicle was subsequently vandalized in the parking lot.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the deputy judge erred in law by applying a strict liability standard rather than the standard of reasonable care under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The court also found palpable and overriding errors in the deputy judge's conclusions on foreseeability and causation, as there was no evidence that the third-party acts were highly probable consequences of the City's conduct or that the City's actions caused the harm.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $25,000 for fraudulent misrepresentation in a share purchase agreement.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding fraudulent misrepresentation and that the claim was statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the appellant's failure to disclose material facts about the company's financial status and inability to issue free-trading shares.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding on the date of discoverability for limitation purposes.

The appellant, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant, commenced an appeal without obtaining the required leave under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant claimed to have received legal advice that leave was not required for an appeal.

The court rejected this argument, noting that leave is required to bring an appeal.

The appeal was dismissed without costs, and a subsequent request for a panel review was denied as the decision was made pursuant to Rule 2.1.

The self-represented appellant, who was found to be a party under a disability and represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee, sought leave to appeal various orders including a settlement approval.

The Court of Appeal previously quashed her appeal for lack of standing.

The appellant then brought a motion in the Divisional Court.

The court issued a Rule 2.1 notice, noting the court lacked jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Court of Appeal and that the appellant lacked standing to appeal anything other than the order appointing the litigation guardian.

The court dismissed the motion under Rule 2.1, without prejudice to the appellant bringing a proper motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal the appointment order.

The self-represented appellant sought to bring two motions to review previous orders in long-outstanding Small Claims Court appeals.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 indicating it was considering dismissing the motions as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and declaring the appellant a vexatious litigant.

The appellant did not respond to the notice.

The court dismissed the proceedings and prohibited the appellant from commencing further proceedings in the Divisional Court without prior permission from an administrative judge.

The self-represented appellant sought to bring two motions to review previous orders in long-outstanding Small Claims Court appeals.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 indicating its intention to dismiss the motions as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting the appellant's history of vexatious conduct and her reliance on her husband, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant.

The appellant failed to respond to the notice.

The court dismissed the proceedings and ordered that the appellant is prohibited from commencing further proceedings in the Divisional Court without prior permission from an administrative judge.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent subcontractor $14,300 for extra work performed on a construction project.

The trial judge found that the developer and appellant had insisted on a material change in methodology that required the respondent to use more expensive motorized buggies instead of cement trucks to protect the substrate.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, his conclusion that there was an implied agreement to pay for the extras, or his assessment of damages.

The appellant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a 2000 motor vehicle accident, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding his claim for enhanced attendant care benefits.

The Divisional Court upheld the LAT's findings that the appellant could not claim retroactive benefits without a valid reason for delay and that the definition of 'incurred' under the New Schedule applied procedurally to his claim.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the 2% per month interest rate on overdue benefits under the Old Schedule applied as a substantive benefit, rather than the 1% rate under the New Schedule.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application under the Partition Act for the sale of a property registered solely in the respondent's name.

The application judge had dismissed the claim, finding on a paper record that the funds advanced by the appellant were a loan, not an investment giving rise to a trust interest.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the application judge erred in law by assessing credibility on material facts in dispute without directing a trial to hear viva voce evidence.

The judgment was set aside and a trial of the whole application was ordered.

The respondent brought a motion for security for costs in the amount of $39,350 regarding the appellants' appeal of a decision dismissing their negligence action for failure to pay outstanding costs orders.

The appellants argued the costs orders were illegitimate and stayed pending a leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the requirements for security for costs were met under Rule 56.01(1)(c) due to the unpaid costs orders.

The motion was granted, and the appellants were ordered to post security for costs.

The respondent was successful on an application for judicial review concerning environmental regulation and hazardous gas wells.

The parties agreed that if costs were awarded, $20,000 all-inclusive would be reasonable.

The applicant argued that no costs should be awarded because the application raised novel issues of public importance.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding that while there were few decisions under the specific Act, related environmental protection case law provided sufficient guidance.

The court declined to depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event and ordered the applicant to pay $20,000 in costs to the respondent.

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 appellant sought to appeal an order discontinuing a trial and directing that a new trial be scheduled before a different judge.

The Divisional Court determined that the order was interlocutory, not final, as it did not dispose of the litigation.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, indicating it was considering dismissing the appeal as an abuse of process for lacking jurisdiction, but provided the appellant an opportunity to make written submissions.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding a boundary fence dispute.

The appellant argued the Small Claims Court lacked jurisdiction because the Line Fences Act governed such disputes.

The Divisional Court noted that while the City of Toronto purported to opt out of the Line Fences Act, its bylaw did not establish an alternative scheme for apportioning costs as required by the Act.

The court adjourned the matter and directed that notice be given to the City of Toronto to provide written submissions on the effectiveness of its opt-out bylaw.