Civil Litigation - Plaintiff cases from the Divisional Court
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed without costs.
The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.
Costs of $7,500 awarded to responding parties following dismissal of motion for leave to appeal.
Following the dismissal of the moving parties' motion for leave to appeal, the responding parties sought costs pursuant to a consent order.
The Divisional Court awarded the responding parties costs in the amount of $7,500, all inclusive, for the appeal and motion for leave to appeal.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with no costs awarded.
The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a December 21, 2020 decision.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.
No costs were awarded as the respondents did not file a cost summary.
Request for expedited scheduling of judicial review of COVID-19 emergency order denied.
The applicants sought to schedule an expedited application for judicial review of an emergency order made under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The order permitted specified persons to obtain personal health information about the COVID status of individuals.
The court declined to set an expedited schedule because the applicants had not yet served their expert evidence, there was no direct evidence of urgency, and the order was set to expire shortly.
A regular hearing date was set, with further case conferences scheduled to address potential mootness or timetabling.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent and trustee.
The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the unreported decision of Hood J. dated October 31, 2019.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the respondent and $5,000 to the trustee.
Costs of unsuccessful security for costs motion fixed at $7,500 and ordered payable within 30 days.
Following the dismissal of the respondent's motion for security for costs of a pending appeal, the successful appellant sought costs of $12,255.13 on a partial indemnity basis.
The respondent argued the amount was excessive and sought to have costs fixed at $6,506.26, payable in any event of the cause.
The court found the appellant's claimed hours excessive given the lack of complexity and brevity of the materials, fixing costs at $7,500 inclusive.
The court declined to order costs payable in any event of the cause, applying the presumptive rule that interlocutory costs are payable within 30 days.
Appeal from refusal to set aside Small Claims Court default judgment dismissed for lack of meritorious defence.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court order dismissing her motion to set aside a default judgment.
The underlying claim alleged she used her position at a bank to induce the plaintiff into a $30,000 fraudulent investment.
The Divisional Court upheld the Deputy Judge's finding that the appellant failed to present a meritorious defence, as her evidence merely asserted the transaction was with her husband and did not address the specific allegations of inducement pleaded against her.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Motion to strike portions of factum dismissed to avoid delay; reply factum permitted instead.
In the context of a family law dispute, moving non-parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order refusing to release a Ferrari from impound.
They brought a motion to strike portions of the respondent's factum and casebook, arguing they relied on facts without evidence.
The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding it would unnecessarily delay the leave to appeal hearing, and instead permitted the moving non-parties to file a reply factum outlining their objections.
Appeal of order reducing security to vacate construction lien dismissed, save for a conceded mathematical error.
The appellant contractor appealed a motion judge's order vacating its construction lien upon the respondent owner posting security in an amount significantly less than the lien claim.
The appellant argued the motion judge erred by resolving complex factual issues regarding unapproved change orders and an extended duration claim on a summary motion under s. 44(2) of the Construction Lien Act.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the law by reducing security only where the evidence failed to establish a reasonable basis for the amounts claimed, though it varied the order to correct a conceded mathematical error.
Appeal of Small Claims Court dismissal denied; no causal link between disputed document report and damages.
The appellant law firm appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim against the respondent.
The appellant had sued the respondent for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation (later characterized as defamation) over a disputed document report the respondent authored under a pseudonym, which the appellant's former client allegedly used to accuse the appellant of forgery.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence of a causal connection between the report and the former client's actions.
Appeal of order for sale of property dismissed; no error in application judge's discretionary decision.
The appellants appealed an application judge's discretionary decision to order the sale of a property rather than its partition, and brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for fresh evidence, finding it could have been obtained prior to the hearing with reasonable diligence.
The appeal was also dismissed, as the appellants failed to identify any error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the application judge's conclusion that an order for sale was appropriate given the number of owners and the nature of the land.
Costs awarded against appellants; public interest litigant exception denied for meritless motion to set aside.
The City of Ottawa sought costs of a motion brought by the appellants to set aside an order refusing leave to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board decision.
The appellants argued they should be excused from paying costs as public interest litigants.
The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding that the motion to set aside was totally without merit and effectively sought to reargue the leave motion, which did not constitute public interest litigation.
Costs were awarded to the City of Ottawa fixed at $5,000 on a partial indemnity basis.
Leave to appeal dismissal of Mareva injunction denied as moving parties failed to show risk of asset dissipation.
The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their second motion for a Mareva injunction.
The underlying dispute involved allegations that a corporate opportunity to purchase a real estate development property was misappropriated.
The court denied leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusion that there was no evidence of fraud or a real risk of asset dissipation.
The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Leave to appeal denied; motion judge correctly found equitable claims were adequately pleaded.
The defendants sought leave to appeal an order refusing to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for equitable relief, including constructive trust, and permitting the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decision on a matter of principle and no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision that the plaintiffs had pleaded sufficient facts to support their equitable claims.
Successful intervenors awarded costs on a modified partial indemnity scale for their motions to intervene.
Following a decision granting the proposed intervenors leave to intervene, the court determined the issue of costs.
The court found that the nature of the case and the intervenors' interests warranted a costs award to the successful intervenors.
Applying the principle of proportionality, the court awarded costs on a modified partial indemnity scale, fixing the costs of the institutional intervenor at $5,500 and the individual intervenors at $6,500.
Pocket bike driven on owner's property is not an automobile for statutory accident benefits.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of FSCO, which found she was not involved in an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The applicant was injured while driving a pocket bike on the property of the bike's owner.
The Divisional Court upheld the Delegate's decision, finding that under the Off-Road Vehicles Act, the pocket bike was not required to be insured while operated on the owner's property.
Consequently, it did not qualify as an 'automobile' at the time of the collision, and the application for judicial review was dismissed.
Appeal of civil jury verdict dismissed; no error in trial judge's discretionary evidentiary and adjournment rulings.
The appellant appealed a civil jury verdict dismissing his claims for assault, negligence, and intentional infliction of nervous shock against police, ambulance attendants, and store security, and awarding damages on the respondents' counterclaims.
The appellant argued the trial judge erred by refusing adjournments, admitting prejudicial expert testimony, and excluding medical reports.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's discretionary rulings on adjournments and evidence, and concluding there was a sufficient basis for the jury's punitive damages award.
Non-exclusive attornment clause does not shift forum non conveniens onus if clause validity is challenged.
The plaintiff, an Ontario resident, sued his former employer for wrongful dismissal.
The employment contract contained a non-exclusive attornment clause to the State of Washington.
The Master stayed the action on the basis of forum non conveniens, finding the clause shifted the onus to the plaintiff to prove Ontario was the more appropriate forum.
On appeal, the Divisional Court held the Master erred in law; the onus does not shift when the validity of the clause is challenged based on public policy and unequal bargaining power.
The appeal was allowed and the stay dismissed.
Court rules on refusals and undertakings in judicial review regarding Highway 407 plate denial.
The applicant brought a motion regarding refusals and undertakings arising from examinations in a judicial review application concerning the respondent's authority to enforce notice of licence cancellation.
The court reviewed transcripts and correspondence, ruling on obvious relevancy issues and leaving the remainder to the Divisional Court panel to determine, noting the competing views on the scope of the record.
Appeal dismissed; motion judge retained jurisdiction to specify time period and rate for interest under OBCA.
The appellants appealed an order clarifying a previous judgment regarding interest payable to a dissenting shareholder under s. 185 of the Business Corporations Act.
The motion judge initially ordered interest 'in accordance with section 185' and later clarified that only postjudgment interest would be awarded from the date of judgment.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge retained jurisdiction to specify both the rate and the time period for interest, and properly exercised his discretion.
Page 78
