Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Perell J. dated April 29, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without 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 ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 all inclusive to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dated July 30, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal with costs fixed at $5,000.

Consequently, the responding party's cross-motion was dismissed as moot without costs.

The applicant moved before a panel of the Divisional Court to review a single motions judge's decision that reconstituted his appeal as an application for judicial review and denied a stay pending the hearing.

The panel found no error in principle in the motions judge's conclusion that there would be no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured respecting the university's autonomy in managing academic affairs.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a July 2, 2024 decision of Justice Black.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on the single issue of whether the Anton Piller order was correctly enlarged to include the business and phone computer of one of the moving parties.

Leave to appeal on all other issues was dismissed.

The court also granted a stay of paragraphs 2 to 4 of the underlying order pending the appeal, with no costs awarded due to divided success.

The moving party (appellant) brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing her appeal for delay and sought an extension of time to perfect her appeal.

The underlying appeal related to a summary judgment declaring that the respondent was not the parent of the moving party's child.

The court treated the motion as one under Rule 37.14(1)(c) to set aside the Registrar's order.

The court found that while the moving party had an intention to appeal, the delay of over two years was significant and prejudicial.

Furthermore, the proposed appeal lacked merit as it improperly sought to introduce voluminous fresh evidence without meeting the Palmer test for admission on appeal.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant's motion for leave to appeal the decision of Charney J. was dismissed as abandoned.

The responding party was awarded costs in the amount of $5,000.

The moving party sought to quash the respondent's application for judicial review and motion for leave to appeal an Ontario Land Tribunal decision.

The moving party argued the proceedings were moot due to recent legislative amendments to the Planning Act under Bill 185.

The court dismissed the motion to quash, finding the moving party failed to meet the high threshold of showing the proceedings were manifestly devoid of merit, leaving the statutory interpretation and mootness issues to be decided by the panel hearing the merits.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a prior decision and brought a motion for the production of documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and dismissed the motion for document production without prejudice to steps that could be taken in the Superior Court.

Costs of $500 were awarded to the responding parties.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking out his negligence claim against the Family Responsibility Office (FRO).

The appellant alleged that FRO was negligent in handling his child support payments and reporting him to a credit bureau, arguing FRO owed him a duty to reply to his correspondence.

The Divisional Court upheld the Deputy Judge's finding that FRO did not owe a duty of care to the appellant, applying the Cooper v. Hobart framework.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an order denying her request to adjourn a summary judgment motion brought by the respondents regarding an improvident realization claim.

The respondents requested a case conference to expedite the leave motion so as not to lose their summary judgment date.

The applicant, self-represented, declined to expedite the process and raised a conflict of interest concern regarding the case management judge.

The judge declined to take any steps at the case conference, noting the applicant bears the risk that her leave motion may become moot if summary judgment is granted.

The moving party, a self-represented tenant, appeared for a motion without having uploaded her materials to Case Center in advance.

She brought a considerable volume of printed material but no copies for the responding parties or the court.

To accommodate the moving party's agent, who had a hearing impairment, and to provide a fair opportunity to present arguments, the Divisional Court converted the oral motion to a hearing in writing and set a peremptory schedule for the delivery of electronic materials and written submissions.

The moving parties, Toufik Benhamiche and Kahina Bensaadi, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Perfetto J. dated February 21, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $5,000, all inclusive.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 15, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.

The appellant valet parking operator appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding it liable for the theft of the respondent's vehicle, which was stolen after an employee left it idling and unattended with the keys inside.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings on negligence and agency, agreeing that the valet breached the standard of care.

However, the appeal was granted because the trial judge erred by adding a related corporate entity as a defendant on their own initiative without a motion, notice, or an opportunity for the added party to respond.

The matter was remanded for a new trial.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Wilson J. dated August 24, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two decisions of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $2,500 to the responding party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a lower court order dated December 7, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and ordered that the appeal be expedited.

The court also directed that the moving party's motion for interim relief be scheduled on an expedited basis before a single judge.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against several discount brokers regarding the receipt of mutual fund trailing commissions.

The motion judge had found no basis in fact for the core proposed common issue of whether the receipt of such commissions contravened applicable Canadian securities law prior to their explicit prohibition in 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge correctly applied the 'some basis in fact' test, properly concluded that all pleaded causes of action relied on the allegation of illegality, and appropriately held the plaintiffs to their strategic concession that the entire action would fail if the core issue was not certified.