Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to set aside a noting in default in a construction lien action.

The appellants had failed to deliver a statement of defence for over a year and offered no explanation for their delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge made no error in refusing to lift the default given the lack of evidence.

The court also noted the appellants improperly attempted to adduce fresh evidence without leave.

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

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

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of Koehnen J. dated March 6, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal the orders of the motion judge dated March 22, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the aggregate amount of $20,000.

The moving party sought leave to appeal two interlocutory orders.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal both orders.

No costs were awarded as the moving party did not seek them.

The moving party, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, brought two motions for leave to appeal the orders of the lower court regarding summary judgment and certification.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to appeal.

The court awarded agreed aggregate costs of $25,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of the motion judge dated May 8, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement.

Costs of $20,000 were awarded to the responding parties.

The appellant sought to appeal a Superior Court decision that dismissed his application as an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to provide submissions on whether the appeal should be dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal under the Courts of Justice Act, as the order appealed from was final and should have been directed to the Court of Appeal.

Alternatively, the court found the appeal to be frivolous and vexatious on its face, as it sought to relitigate matters already adjudicated in prior proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding statutory accident benefits.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the application, finding that the applicant ought to have pursued a statutory appeal under s. 11(6) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, which limits appeals to questions of law.

The court held there were no exceptional circumstances to justify bypassing the statutory appeal mechanism and declined to convert the application into an appeal.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to the applicant seeking an extension of time to pursue a statutory appeal.

The moving party sought leave to appeal but failed to file her materials as ordered.

The court adjourned the motion and set a new deadline, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal.

The moving party again failed to serve, file, and upload her materials.

After failing to provide an explanation for the delay when prompted by court staff, the motion for leave to appeal was dismissed for failure to comply with the court's directions, without costs.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his claim to the proceeds of the sale of his brother and sister-in-law's matrimonial home.

The appellant claimed he advanced $700,000 for the down payment and held a beneficial interest via a trust declaration and oral agreement.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's findings that there was no triable issue regarding the advanced funds, the oral trust violated the Statute of Frauds, and the written trust declaration was unconscionable and coerced from the respondent wife.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order requiring them to produce a witness statement taken by an adjuster from an employee after litigation commenced.

The motions judge had found that litigation privilege over the statement was waived because its contents were discussed and particulars provided during examination for discovery.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the motions judge erred by failing to apply the established principle that a party must disclose relevant facts from a privileged document during discovery without waiving privilege over the document itself.

The applicants raised a preliminary objection seeking the recusal of Leiper J. from the panel on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicants argued that Leiper J.'s involvement in two prior decisions involving the same parties, including a refusal to grant a stay that was later partially reversed by the Court of Appeal, met the threshold for disqualification.

The Divisional Court dismissed the objection, finding that the applicants failed to meet the heavy burden of rebutting the strong presumption of judicial impartiality, noting that prior involvement alone does not establish bias and there were no allegations of improper conduct.

The appellants appealed a certification order for a class action arising from an infection control lapse at an endoscopy clinic.

The plaintiff sought compensation for the enhanced risk of infection and the psychological trauma of receiving a public health notification, despite testing negative for any blood-borne diseases.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the certification order, finding that a claim for damages based solely on an increased risk of harm, without actual injury, is not a legally viable cause of action.

The defendant appealed an order striking its statement of defence in a wrongful dismissal action.

The statement of defence was struck after the defendant engaged in a months-long pattern of delaying and frustrating the scheduling of examinations for discovery, despite warnings from plaintiff's counsel and a case management judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Associate Justice's exercise of discretion.

The court confirmed that striking the pleading was a proportionate response to the defendant's egregious and ongoing dilatory conduct.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking his claim against two physicians.

The appellant alleged the physicians used improper OHIP billing codes and improperly disclosed his personal health details to the police.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Deputy Judge's conclusions that the incorrect use of OHIP billing codes does not ground an action in negligence or breach of fiduciary duty, and that the Small Claims Court lacks jurisdiction to review CPSO investigations or grant remedies under the Charter or federal privacy legislation.

The court also found the appellant was not denied procedural fairness.

The appellant employee appealed an order staying his wrongful dismissal action in favour of arbitration.

He argued the arbitration clause was invalid because the employment agreement contracted out of the Employment Standards Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that under s. 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, there is no appeal from a decision to stay a proceeding in favour of arbitration.

The appellant insurer appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing its Rule 21 motion for delay.

The motion sought to determine that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction over the respondent's action, which challenged the results of a statutory appraisal process under the Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the appraisal process is final and binding, subject only to judicial review.

The court held that a lack of jurisdiction cannot be treated as a mere irregularity and that delay in bringing a Rule 21 motion challenging jurisdiction should generally only result in costs consequences, not dismissal of the motion.

The action was stayed for want of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a Master's order granting the respondent leave to discontinue its defamation action.

The appellant argued that his outstanding anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act precluded the respondent from discontinuing the proceeding, relying on the statutory stay in s. 137.1(5).

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory prohibition on taking 'further steps' does not prevent a plaintiff from moving to bring the entire proceeding to an end with prejudice.

The court found the Master had jurisdiction and properly exercised her discretion to grant leave to discontinue on terms that barred subsequent actions.