Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The appellant, a former bank executive, appealed a decision dismissing his motion to amend his wrongful dismissal statement of claim.

He sought to add a $10 million claim for unjust enrichment and disgorgement, arguing the employer profited from retaining his unpaid compensation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the proposed amendment legally untenable.

The court held there was no corresponding deprivation to the employer's enrichment, as the appellant's loss was limited to the time value of money, which is adequately addressed by the interest provisions in the Courts of Justice Act.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent, payable within 30 days.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported order of McGee J. dated May 25, 2023.

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 party, a lumber supplier, sought an extension of time to commence an appeal to the Divisional Court from an order regarding the preservation of funds under Rule 45.02 and the Construction Lien Act.

The moving party had initially appealed to the Court of Appeal, which quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time, finding that the moving party had a bona fide intention to appeal, provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, caused no prejudice to the respondents, and raised arguable questions of law on the merits.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated July 4, 2023.

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 plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated May 24, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal with costs of $5,000 payable in the discretion of the appeal panel.

The court also amended previous orders to state that the order will cease to have effect if the defendant pays the Canadian dollar equivalent of €3,266,122.45 into court as security.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of McSweeney J. dated May 31, 2023.

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

The appellants appealed a decision dismissing their appeal of a solicitor's account assessment.

They argued the appeal judge denied them procedural fairness by refusing an adjournment, muting one of the appellants during a virtual hearing, and proceeding without full transcripts.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the judge properly exercised his discretion to refuse the adjournment and to control the court's process by muting a disruptive litigant.

The court also upheld the assessment officer's findings and the award of substantial indemnity costs against the appellants.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Cavanagh J. dated March 28, 2023.

The responding parties did not file any materials.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding parties did not participate, no order as to costs was made.

The respondent in a family law appeal brought a motion for security for costs against the appellant.

The court determined that the Rules of Civil Procedure, rather than the Family Law Rules, governed the motion.

Applying Rule 61.06(1), the court found that the appellant resided outside Ontario, had unpaid costs awards, and likely had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The court ordered the appellant to pay $68,631.32 in outstanding costs and post $25,000 as security for the appeal costs, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the costs orders of a lower court judge.

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

The moving party, an adjudicative tribunal, brought a motion seeking leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal of one of its own decisions regarding property assessment.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing the tribunal lacked a statutory right to appear and its participation threatened tribunal impartiality.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, applying the established factors for tribunal intervention.

The court found that the tribunal could provide useful context regarding its statutory and procedural framework without engaging in the merits of the appeal or compromising its impartiality.

The appellant estate brought a motion for a stay of orders requiring the production of a legal file, the examination of a law firm representative, and the passing of accounts pending its appeal.

The court found that the appeal regarding the legal file and examination was moot, as those steps had already occurred.

While there was a serious question regarding the passing of accounts, the appellant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court also noted that the appellant's litigation misconduct and transfer of estate property rendered its hands 'unclean', disentitling it to equitable relief.

The motion for a stay was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his action against his father for the repayment of his student loans.

The appellant argued his father was liable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, claiming his father promised to repay the loans if he studied engineering.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions that the appellant failed to prove the content of the representation, detrimental reliance, or damages.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 considering the dismissal of the applicants' judicial review application as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The notice cited the litigation guardian's failure to retain counsel and the deficient nature of the Notice of Application.

The court found the applicants had cured the representation defect by retaining counsel.

Although the Notice of Application remained fundamentally deficient, the court granted the applicants an indulgence to file an amended pleading, staying the Rule 2.1 process pending compliance.

The applicant brought a stated case from the Ontario Labour Relations Board seeking a finding of contempt against the respondents.

The respondents failed to attend a case management teleconference despite being served.

The court ordered the applicant to take further steps to serve the respondents, including personal service on the corporate directors and the personal respondent, and directed the OLRB to appear at the next case conference due to the unusual delay since the case was stated in 2020.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment that awarded them $1,000 against a corporate auto repair shop but dismissed claims against the shop's individual owners.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in failing to pierce the corporate veil, finding the Consumer Protection Act did not apply, assessing credibility, and denying costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors.

The trial judge correctly concluded the appellants were not 'consumers' under the Act because the vehicle was purchased for business purposes, and properly exercised discretion in declining to award costs.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment entered against them after they failed to attend a virtual trial.

The appellants had requested an adjournment, citing a desire for an in-person trial and their agent's presence in Florida, which the trial judge refused.

The Divisional Court found no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion to refuse the adjournment, noting the appellants' reasons were illogical and lacked detail.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a Master's order dismissing her motion to add two snow removal contractors as defendants after the expiry of the limitation period.

The appellant argued misnomer and discoverability.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's findings that the statement of claim did not point the 'litigation finger' at the sidewalk contractor, as it only alleged injuries from a fall on the roadway.

The Court also upheld the finding that the appellant failed to exercise reasonable diligence to identify the contractors within the limitation period.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant brought a preliminary motion for a publication ban, anonymization order, and sealing of documents in her application for judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.

The underlying complaint related to the police investigation of an alleged sexual assault against the applicant while she was working as an exotic dancer.

Applying the Sherman Estate test, the court found that court openness posed a serious risk to the applicant's privacy and psychological well-being, and that the benefits of protecting her identity outweighed the negative effects on the open court principle.

The motion was granted, allowing the applicant to proceed using initials.