Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

Following the dismissal of the applicant's application for judicial review, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that he was a public interest litigant and applied the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs.

Costs were fixed in favour of the respondent on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $15,000 all-inclusive.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,436.

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 awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Mills J. dated September 23, 2024.

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

At a case management conference, the parties agreed to hold the applicant's application for judicial review in abeyance pending the Ontario Land Tribunal's decision on a request for reconsideration under section 23 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021.

The court endorsed the agreement, setting a timetable for the filing of amended notices and application records following the release of the Tribunal's decision.

The appellants appealed an Associate Judge's decision finding that Ontario lacked jurisdiction and was not the convenient forum for their fraud claim.

The appellants argued the claim was based on omissions occurring in Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error of law or palpable and overriding error in the Associate Judge's conclusion that France was clearly the more appropriate forum.

The appellants appealed a decision under the Business Corporations Act regarding a deadlocked dental corporation.

The application judge had found no oppression by the respondent and ordered the corporation to be wound up essentially in terms of the buyout provisions of a draft shareholders' agreement.

On appeal, the appellants argued the judge misapprehended evidence and failed to address the relief sought regarding the sale of shares.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge's rulings were based on the evidence and constituted a reasonable exercise of discretion.

A motion to introduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

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

The appellant sought to appeal a partial summary judgment ordering the sale of jointly owned property and dismissing his trust claim.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the trust claim, as its value exceeded $50,000.

Although the court had jurisdiction over the property sale order, the issues were intertwined.

Consequently, the court ordered the entire matter transferred to the Court of Appeal pursuant to section 110 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 3, 2022.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal with no costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Justice Myers.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent fixed at $2,500 all inclusive.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of Justice Kershman dated May 27, 2022.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal, awarding costs of $5,000 all-inclusive to the responding party.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order certifying a class proceeding.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on issues including whether the motion judge erred by certifying liability for increased risk, causation and damages, whether a class proceeding remains the preferable procedure, and whether a family class should have been certified.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $5,000 and reserved to the panel hearing the appeal.

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) brought a motion for leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an application for judicial review.

The underlying application challenged the City of Hamilton's decision to reject an advertisement submitted by the applicants for display on the City's transit system.

The court applied the test for intervention and found that ARCC had a real, substantial, and identifiable interest in the issues, and would provide a useful and distinct perspective regarding the broader potential impact of the decision.

The motion for leave to intervene was granted subject to conditions limiting the scope and length of ARCC's submissions.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Akbarali J. dated July 28, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As agreed by the parties, costs were awarded to the responding parties in the amount of $37,500.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision that there was no limitation period on the respondent's right to enforce a 1999 construction lien judgment due to the transitional provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The respondent cross-appealed on issues including the vacating of the lien, characterization of set-off claims, and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the transitional provisions because the relevant 'proceeding' was the enforcement action, not the original suit.

The cross-appeal was allowed only to correct the formal order, removing findings of fact improperly included as orders.

The moving party, LSN Investments Inc., brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Justice Perell.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $4,985.56.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the orders of Associate Justice Graham dated March 28, 2022, and May 24, 2022.

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

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $3,000.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal where the appellants successfully set aside a finding that a revenue misrepresentation claim was encompassed within the original statement of claim, thereby preserving a Limitations Act defence.

Both parties claimed to be the successful party and sought costs of $20,000.

The court found that success was divided, as the appellants did not get the claim dismissed but did preserve a significant defence.

The court awarded the appellants $10,000 for the appeal and $1,500 for costs submissions, and ordered each party to bear their own costs for the motion below.