Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of D.A. Jarvis J. dated October 15, 2024.

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

The self-represented appellant filed an appeal in the Divisional Court instead of the Court of Appeal over ten years ago.

After a decade of inaction, the appellant brought a motion under section 110 of the Courts of Justice Act to transfer the appeal to the proper court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and the appeal, finding that the underlying appeal regarding the respondent's compliance with an arbitration award had no reasonable chance of success.

Furthermore, the court found that transferring the matter after such an extreme and unexplained delay would cause undue prejudice to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondents $35,000 for unpaid ATM machines.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by not enforcing a forum selection clause designating Alberta, and by finding the debt was owed to the specific corporate entity that sent the invoice.

The Divisional Court dismissed these grounds, finding the trial judge properly applied the 'strong cause' test to decline enforcing the forum selection clause and reasonably inferred the debt was owed to the invoicing entity.

However, the appeal was allowed in part to reduce the pre- and post-judgment interest rate from 18% to 5% per annum, as the invoice failed to state an annualized rate as required by section 4 of the Interest Act.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking his defamation claim against his former employer.

The motion judge had struck the claim on the basis that a termination letter sent to an employment agency was not 'published' to the public, and alternatively, that the appellant failed to provide notice under s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that publication to a single third party satisfies the test for defamation, and that the s. 5(1) notice requirement does not apply to private emails or letters.

The defamation claim was restored.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his oppression application, where the application judge found he was not a beneficial shareholder of the respondent corporations.

The application judge had concluded that an earlier agreement granting the appellant a 9% interest was mutually rescinded when a portion of the corporate group was sold.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding it procedurally unfair to decide the case on the unpleaded and unargued theory of mutual rescission.

Furthermore, the court found no factual or legal basis for mutual rescission, concluding the appellant remained a 9% beneficial shareholder entitled to his share of the sale proceeds.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal, as well as leave to appeal an underlying order and costs order.

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

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

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Belobaba J. dated December 29, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding party did not provide costs submissions, the court made no order as to costs.

The appellant condominium owner appealed a Condominium Authority Tribunal (CAT) decision finding he breached a settlement agreement regarding excessive noise.

On appeal, the appellant argued the CAT provided inadequate reasons for dismissing his defence that the condominium corporation harassed him, and erred in awarding costs against him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the CAT correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the harassment claims under s. 117(1) of the Condominium Act, and that the discretionary costs award revealed no error in principle.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision that declined to dismiss his proceeding under Rule 2.1.

However, the motion for leave to appeal sought summary judgment, an order preventing a Rule 21 motion, and costs, none of which were addressed in the underlying decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal under Rule 2.1 as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that the relief sought was not the proper subject matter of an appeal from the decision.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

The Delegate held that the applicant was not entitled to deduct a lump sum amount received by the respondent for long-term disability benefits from an amount owing for past income replacement benefits.

The Divisional Court found the Delegate's interpretation of s. 7(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule to be reasonable, as the long-term disability benefits were not 'available' to the respondent at the time the income replacement benefits were due.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The moving parties, Wrestling Canada Lutte, Tamara Medwidsky, and Lee Mackay, brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of K. A. Jensen J. dated May 2, 2023.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal, with costs reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Perell J. dated April 14, 2023.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Van Melle J. dated April 19, 2023.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated April 28, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $5,000 all inclusive.

The applicant filed an application for judicial review in the Divisional Court, seeking to review a decision by the Executive Legal Officer of the Court of Appeal to delist its appeal for failing to post security for costs.

The court initiated a review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the application was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the application, finding it lacked legal merit because the Divisional Court has no jurisdiction to judicially review decisions of the Court of Appeal, which is a superior court of record.

Furthermore, the court noted that court administrators have the authority to manage court lists and the delisting was a direct consequence of the applicant's failure to comply with a court order to post security for costs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Justice Barbara Conway dated September 16, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were fixed at $4,500 payable by the moving party to the respondent.

The appellant defaulted on a $15,000 business loan guaranteed by the Province of Ontario under an economic development program.

Ontario repaid the bank and later successfully sued the appellant in Small Claims Court for indemnification.

On appeal, the appellant argued the action was barred by the two-year limitation period and the doctrine of laches.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that Ontario sued as a guarantor exempt from limitation periods under the Limitations Act, 2002, and that laches did not apply because Ontario had actively pursued collection.

The appellant was denied income replacement benefits after her insurer discovered she misrepresented her address to obtain a lower premium.

The insurer subsequently charged her a retroactive premium increase.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial and refused to apply section 131 of the Insurance Act, which excuses non-compliance based on an insurer's conduct, finding it lacked equitable jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held the LAT erred in law by conflating equitable remedies with statutory relief under section 131, which the LAT has jurisdiction to apply.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal to the Divisional Court while a request for reconsideration of that decision was still pending before the Tribunal.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the court lacked jurisdiction because the decision was not final.

The Divisional Court agreed, holding that it has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory decision of the Tribunal, and that the time for appeal runs from the date of the final order on the reconsideration request.

The appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their certification motions in two proposed class actions arising from a privacy breach at two hospitals.

Rogue hospital employees accessed the contact information of maternity patients and sold it to RESP salespeople.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's finding that the accessed information (names, addresses, phone numbers, and basic hospital visit details) was personal but not highly private, and that the intrusion would not be regarded by a reasonable person as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation, or anguish.

Although the motions judge erred in his class definition, the appeal was dismissed because the elements of the tort of intrusion upon seclusion were not met.