Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

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

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 appellants appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) Reconsideration Decision that upheld the denial of their claims for non-earner and housekeeping benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the LAT's handling of the hearing, including its evidentiary rulings and the substitution of an adjudicator for preliminary matters.

The court also dismissed the appellants' allegation of a reasonable apprehension of bias regarding a LAT adjudicator who subsequently accepted employment with a different insurer, finding the high threshold for bias was not met.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Sutherland J. dated July 24, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs in the amount of $4,520.56 to the responding party.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a costs endorsement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in writing.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an unreported decision of Parghi J. dated July 5, 2024.

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

At a case conference for an appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment, the self-represented appellant argued that transcripts of the trial judge's oral reasons and evidence were unnecessary because the appeal involved an issue of law.

The court held that under Rule 61.05(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the appellants bear the responsibility to order and file transcripts unless the parties agree to omit evidence or the court orders otherwise.

The court declined to adjourn the case conference or remove respondent's counsel, and warned the appellants that failing to provide the trial judge's reasons would likely result in the summary dismissal of their appeal.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed her claim for breach of contract regarding a roof replacement and granted the respondents' cross-claim for defamation based on negative online reviews.

On appeal, the appellant argued she was denied procedural fairness, alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias, and raised several errors regarding contract interpretation and defamation defences.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no evidence of bias, and no palpable and overriding errors in the deputy judge's findings of fact or application of the law.

The moving party, a 50% shareholder in a marijuana retailing business, sought an extension of time to seek leave to appeal three interlocutory orders granting and continuing an injunction against her.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that the delay was not adequately justified and that the proposed appeals lacked merit.

The court emphasized the need for the parties to proceed to trial rather than engaging in further interlocutory litigation.

The appellant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying a special award on housing benefits.

The insurer had unreasonably delayed and withheld benefits but agreed to pay the full amount claimed shortly before the hearing.

The LAT Adjudicator granted a special award on most benefits but denied it for housing benefits because no report on the value of renovations to the existing home was provided under s. 16(4)(c) of the SABS.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Adjudicator erred in law by interpreting s. 10 to require an adjudication of the amount of the benefit when the insurer had already agreed to pay the claimed amount.

The moving parties, Joseph A. John and Intact Insurance Company, brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Justice Michael T. Doi dated April 16, 2024.

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

The responding party was granted an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal.

However, the motions for leave to appeal the decision of Trimble J., brought by both the moving party and the responding party, were dismissed without costs.

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

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

The moving party sought an extension of time and leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court granted the extension of time but dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as no costs outline was filed.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

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

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their motion to set aside an undefended trial judgment regarding a basement renovation contract.

The appellants argued the motions judge erred in calculating the delay, applied the wrong legal test, ignored evidence of fraud, was biased, and improperly awarded costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge correctly applied Rule 17.04 of the Small Claims Court Rules, properly exercised her discretion, and exhibited no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant sought statutory accident benefits after suffering a spinal cord hemorrhage and paraplegia following a stressful incident involving aggressive driving by motorcyclists and her driver.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied benefits, finding the incident did not meet the causation test for an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court quashed the decision, finding the Tribunal's analysis of the expert medical evidence unreasonable and its application of the intervening cause and dominant feature tests legally flawed.

The matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

The applicant insurer sought a stay of Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) proceedings pending a judicial review of the LAT's refusal to adjourn a hearing date.

Neither counsel for the applicant nor the respondent were available for the scheduled hearing dates.

The LAT opposed the stay and argued the judicial review was premature.

The single judge of the Divisional Court adjourned the stay motion to a full panel, noting the motion's outcome would likely resolve the underlying judicial review.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal regarding statutory accident benefits.

The appellant's father, who is not a lawyer, sought to represent him, claiming the appellant suffers from a mental disability.

After a previous motion to appoint the father as litigation guardian was dismissed, the court provided directions for the father to bring a motion to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee to act on the appellant's behalf.

The appellant, Ontario, appealed a case management judge's order that directed multiple motions, including motions to strike, to proceed concurrently with the respondents' motion for leave to pursue a bad faith claim against the Crown.

Ontario argued that section 17(2) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019 imposes an automatic stay on the entire proceeding until leave is granted.

The Divisional Court agreed, holding that the statutory stay applies to all claims in the proceeding, not just those against the Crown, and that the court's inherent jurisdiction cannot override this statutory mandate.

The appeal was granted, and all motions other than the leave motion were stayed.

The self-represented appellants appealed an Associate Justice's order refusing leave to amend their statement of claim in a property dispute concerning air rights and exhaust vents.

The Divisional Court upheld the refusal to add a new corporate plaintiff due to the expiry of the limitation period.

However, the court found the Associate Justice made palpable and overriding errors in refusing amendments related to windows, a venting system, and specific heads of damages, as these were not new causes of action and caused no non-compensable prejudice.

The appeal was allowed in part, permitting the amendments subject to the respondent's right to conduct further discovery at the appellants' expense.