Civil Litigation - Plaintiff cases from the Divisional Court
Appeal and judicial review of LAT decision denying catastrophic impairment benefits dismissed.
The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her catastrophic impairment designation and income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The appellant argued that the Vice-Chair provided insufficient reasons, relied on issues not raised in the denial letters, denied her procedural fairness, and made unreasonable findings of fact.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application for judicial review, finding that the Vice-Chair provided comprehensive reasons, properly applied the 'but for' test for causation, afforded procedural fairness, and made reasonable findings based on the evidence.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed without costs.
The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 21, 2023.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.
Application for judicial review of insurance appraisal award dismissed; umpire's determination of depreciation rate was reasonable.
The applicant sought judicial review of an umpire's appraisal award determining the actual cash value of a resort property destroyed by fire.
The applicant argued the umpire exceeded his jurisdiction by deciding the depreciation rate, which it claimed the parties had already agreed upon, and breached procedural fairness by not adjourning the hearing.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the umpire's decision reasonable as the depreciation rate was clearly in dispute based on the appraisal briefs.
The court also held that the informal appraisal process under section 128 of the Insurance Act was conducted fairly and the respondent's appraiser owed no duty of procedural fairness to the applicant.
Timetable set for filing materials on a motion for leave to appeal regarding capacity issues.
A case management conference was held to schedule a motion for leave to appeal an order regarding capacity and representation issues.
The court noted delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the self-represented status of two respondents.
The court set a timetable for the filing of materials and directed that the motion for leave to appeal proceed in writing.
Appeal of expropriation compensation dismissed; Board reasonably deducted mortgage before calculating statutory interest and awarded costs.
The appellant appealed an Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding interest and costs awarded following the expropriation of its lands by the respondent City.
The Board had calculated statutory interest based on the appellant's net interest in the lands after deducting an outstanding mortgage, and awarded costs against the appellant from the date of a Rule 49 settlement offer that exceeded the final compensation award.
The Divisional Court found the Board's interpretation of the Expropriations Act regarding both the interest calculation and the costs award to be reasonable, dismissing the appeal.
Small Claims appeal allowed; judgment granted for unpaid rent and misappropriated funds after jurisdictional error.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court order dismissing her action for unpaid rent and misappropriated funds against her former partner.
The Deputy Judge had dismissed the action on the basis that it should be dealt with in the parties' family law action.
The Divisional Court found the Deputy Judge erred, as the Ontario Court of Justice had already struck the property claims for lack of jurisdiction.
Rather than remitting the matter, the Divisional Court granted judgment for the appellant, awarding $4,715 for unpaid rent and misappropriated funds, $1,000 in punitive and aggravated damages, and $2,500 in costs.
Class action certification appeal dismissed; student claims regarding strike disruption barred by academic discretion.
The appellant sought to certify a class proceeding on behalf of York University students whose classes were disrupted by a 2008 strike, alleging breach of contract, breach of the Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment.
The motions judge dismissed the certification motion, finding the pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action because the claims improperly interfered with the university's academic discretion.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the motions judge's conclusion that the claims were barred by academic discretion and that the pleadings were insufficient to establish a contractual or statutory cause of action.
Leave to appeal dismissal of summary judgment denied as discoverability issues required a trial.
The defendants sought leave to appeal the dismissal of their summary judgment motion.
The underlying action involved a claim for $1.4 million for breach of a television series production and distribution agreement.
The summary judgment motion had been dismissed because the motions judge found that the discoverability of the claim required multiple findings of fact on conflicting evidence, which could only be achieved at trial.
The Divisional Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's application of the full appreciation test and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.
Small Claims Court appeal dismissed as trial judge properly exercised discretion regarding adjournments and evidence.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision on the grounds that the trial judge erred by refusing an adjournment, refusing to admit his version of a contract, and refusing to admit hearsay witness statements.
The Divisional Court found that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in denying the adjournment due to a lack of medical evidence, properly excluded the illegible and altered contract documents, and reasonably exercised his discretion under section 27(1) of the Courts of Justice Act to exclude the hearsay statements.
The appeal was dismissed.
Leave to appeal class certification order granted in part, limited to the civil conspiracy claim.
The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a motion judge's order certifying a class proceeding in part.
The motion judge had declined to certify claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and civil conspiracy, and had restricted the class to Canadian purchasers.
The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal solely on the issue of the civil conspiracy claim, finding conflicting decisions and good reason to doubt the correctness of requiring the plaintiff to plead special damages at the certification stage.
Leave to appeal was denied for the misrepresentation claims and the class definition.
Appeal of $40,000 jury award for slander dismissed as the amount was not patently excessive.
The appellant collection agency appealed a jury's assessment of $40,000 in general damages for slander.
The appellant's employee falsely represented himself as a lawyer to the respondent's employer, claiming a garnishment order had been issued against her.
The appellant argued the damages were patently excessive and should be reduced to $10,000.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that while the award was on the high side, it was not anomalous or wholly out of proportion, given the malicious nature of the call and the respondent's position handling cash at a bank.
Leave to appeal granted to insurer regarding child's claim for damages from denial of mother's benefits.
The applicant insurer sought leave to appeal a motion judge's decision refusing to strike portions of the respondent's statement of claim.
The respondent, a child passenger in a vehicle driven by her mother, sued the mother's statutory accident benefits insurer for damages arising from the insurer's denial of the mother's claim, alleging breach of contract, bad faith, and negligence resulting in the loss of her mother's care and guidance.
The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusions that the respondent could claim mental distress damages for breach of a peace of mind contract, that the insurer owed the respondent a duty of good faith regarding her mother's claim, and that the alleged harm was foreseeable in tort.
Leave to appeal Master's costs order granted and appeal allowed due to error in exercising discretion.
The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Master Dash on the issue of costs only.
The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred in exercising his discretion with respect to costs against the plaintiffs.
The court noted that a relevant precedent with virtually identical facts had not been brought to the Master's attention.
Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the plaintiffs.
Leave to appeal denied; ex parte injunctions properly set aside for plaintiff's failure to make full disclosure.
The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an order setting aside five ex parte injunctions he had obtained against the defendant regarding the proceeds of a real estate sale.
The motions judge had set aside the orders after finding the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts, including a $2 million mortgage and other joint ventures, and had admitted to dishonesty in other proceedings.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision or her exercise of discretion in assessing the plaintiff's lack of candour.
Costs awarded for abandoned motion; self-represented litigant's fee claim reduced as not entitled to lawyer rates.
The defendants abandoned their motion for security for costs of the appeal.
The plaintiffs sought costs of the abandoned motion.
The court found that the plaintiffs did not conceal assets and were entitled to costs.
The court reduced the quantum of costs claimed, noting that the self-represented plaintiff was not entitled to claim fees at a lawyer's rate despite his litigation experience.
Costs were fixed at $8,000 for fees, plus disbursements and GST.
Appeal dismissed; parol evidence rule prevents oral agreement from contradicting clear terms of written lease.
The appellants (tenants) appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering them to pay unpaid rent and utility costs to the respondent (landlord).
The appellants argued that an oral agreement existed wherein utilities were included in the rent, and that the trial judge erred in applying the parol evidence rule.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the written lease clearly and unambiguously required the tenants to pay for propane and electrical charges, and that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error.
Small Claims Court decision rescinding home renovation contract under Consumer Protection Act upheld on appeal.
The defendants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment that rescinded a home renovation contract and dismissed their counterclaim.
The trial judge found the contract for a sunroom addition voidable for non-compliance with the Consumer Protection Act and rescinded it due to unfair practices.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the law and made no palpable and overriding error of fact regarding the contract or the dismissal of the defendants' counterclaim for unjust enrichment.
Appeal allowed; Master erred by hearing final cross-motion before interlocutory motion to amend pleadings.
The appellants appealed a Master's decision that dismissed their motion to amend their statement of defence and granted the respondent's cross-motion for judgment based on minutes of settlement.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred by hearing the final cross-motion before the interlocutory motion to amend.
The Court also held that the Master applied the incorrect test under Rule 26 by reversing the onus, as the opposing party must prove non-compensable prejudice to defeat a motion to amend.
Leave to appeal denied; discoverability issue regarding adding a defendant after limitation period left for trial.
The defendant Terex Corporation sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order dismissing its appeal of a Master's order.
The Master had granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim to add Terex as a defendant after the presumptive limitation period had expired, leaving the issue of discoverability for trial.
The court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the order below and dismissed the application for leave to appeal, awarding agreed costs of $3,500 to the plaintiffs.
Leave to appeal denied; OMB did not err in refusing party status to neighbouring property owner.
The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board that denied it party status in a site plan appeal.
The moving party argued it was denied natural justice and that the Board applied the wrong test for standing.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the site plan process does not determine the rights of neighbouring property owners, and thus there was no denial of natural justice.
The Court also held that the Board properly exercised its discretion over its own procedure in determining that the municipality could adequately protect the public interest.
Page 76
