Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The moving party condominium corporation sought an extension of time to appeal a decision of the Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) regarding an accessible parking space dispute.

The corporation had initially brought an application for judicial review, which was dismissed for being the incorrect route, causing a delay in filing the appeal.

The Divisional Court applied the test for extending time to appeal, finding that the corporation had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was reasonably explained by counsel's error in choosing the appeal route, there was no significant prejudice to the respondent, and the proposed appeal had sufficient merit.

The motion to extend time to appeal was granted.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Koehnen J. dated May 11, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $4,500.

The appellants, former employees of Medcan, appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class proceeding for unpaid vacation and public holiday pay on variable compensation.

The certification judge had found that a class action was not the preferable procedure.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the certification judge erred in principle by failing to conduct the preferability analysis through the lens of the three principal goals of class actions, specifically failing to consider barriers to access to justice and behaviour modification.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of Doi J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $2,500 inclusive.

The moving party, Canadian National Railway Company, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Gordon J. dated April 26, 2022.

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 an unreported order dated April 11, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The moving party sought an interim stay of a decision that ended an ex parte interlocutory injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with a mortgage, pending a motion for leave to appeal.

The underlying dispute involved a property development and a contest over the ownership of the moving party corporation.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the motion for leave to appeal was weak, there was no irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience did not favor extending the injunction.

The third parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Doi J. dated May 13, 2022.

The Divisional Court reviewed the motion in writing.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000, payable within 30 days.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 23, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded no costs.

The court noted that it reached its decision without reference to non-compliant materials filed by the responding party.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of André J. dated April 29, 2022.

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

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order regarding the production of documents.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on a single issue: whether the motion judge erred in ordering the production of documents after May 2016, having found an implied joint retainer among the parties and their counsel.

Costs of the motion were reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment that dismissed its action for the return of a deposit and granted the respondent's defendant's claim for $25,000 in lost profits.

The dispute arose from a contract for the design and construction of a steel building.

The appellant argued that no contract was formed, that it did not breach the contract, and that the trial judge erred in awarding damages and failing to consider evidence.

The Divisional Court applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review and found that the trial judge's conclusions were reasonably supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $6,000.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated May 18, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the agreed-upon amount of $6,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent fixed at $2,898.45.

The proposed intervener law firm sought leave to intervene in a motion for leave to appeal an order requiring the production of its privileged documents based on an implied joint retainer.

The moving party argued it had a direct interest in the subject matter and could be adversely affected by new grounds of appeal challenging its conduct.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that intervention on a leave to appeal motion should be rare and extraordinary, and that the proposed intervener's submissions largely duplicated those of the appellant.

The request to intervene in the appeal itself was adjourned pending the outcome of the leave motion.

The International Trademark Association (ITA) brought a motion to intervene in an appeal regarding an interlocutory injunction restraining the use of a disputed trademark.

The ITA sought to make submissions on the meaning and effect of recent amendments to Canada's trademark legislation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the ITA's proposed arguments focused on the final disposition of legal questions that would be decided at trial, rather than the test for an interlocutory injunction which was the subject of the appeal.

The court concluded the intervention would distract rather than assist the appeal court.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, awarding costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

A related motion to strike fresh evidence was dismissed as moot, as the court concluded it would not grant leave even if the evidence were admitted.

The moving parties sought to settle an order denying leave to appeal to the Divisional Court by inserting a provision transferring the appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The responding party opposed the request, arguing that substantive relief not requested in the original motion cannot be sought during an appointment to settle an order.

The court agreed, holding that a motion to settle an order is procedural and declined to vary the order as signed by the Registrar.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order of Taylor J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, clarifying that the interlocutory decision does not preclude any party from seeking relief on any issues in the case pursuant to Rules 20 and 21.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment but failed to perfect the appeal for over a year.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The appellant subsequently filed a consumer proposal and argued that the appeal and motion were stayed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Divisional Court held that the stay of proceedings under s. 69.2(1) of the BIA does not apply to an appeal initiated by the debtor.

Applying the Paulsson factors, the court dismissed the appeal for delay, noting the excessive delay, prejudice to the respondents, and the lack of merit in the appellant's arguments regarding language rights and the trial judge's assessment of evidence.