Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

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 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.

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 appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision that barred her application for statutory accident benefits due to late notice.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in law in interpreting the notice requirements under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues raised regarding the limitation period and the reasonableness of the delayed notice were questions of mixed fact and law, which fall outside the court's statutory jurisdiction to hear appeals on questions of law only.

The court also noted the appellant improperly raised new arguments not advanced before the Tribunal.

The appellant owner appealed a summary judgment finding it liable to pay a subcontractor directly for amounts owed by the contractor, pursuant to a termination agreement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the owner agreed to pay the subcontractor's outstanding balance.

However, the court set aside the motion judge's award of 24% interest, finding the issue was not properly addressed, and directed the parties to provide further written submissions on the proper calculation of interest.

The moving party brought two motions seeking to set aside previous orders and recuse the judges who made them.

The court reviewed the motions under Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if they were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Finding that the motions lacked legal basis, were exemplary of a pattern of abusive behaviour, and were abusive of the court process on their face, the court dismissed both motions without requiring written submissions.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her defamation and negligence action against the respondent for publishing regulatory disciplinary decisions about her.

The Deputy Judge dismissed the action at a settlement conference on the basis that it was bound to fail because the publication of quasi-judicial decisions is protected by absolute privilege.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Deputy Judge's conclusion that the claims had no merit and that the action could be summarily dismissed.

The appellant appealed an interlocutory decision of the License Appeal Tribunal directing her to attend insurer-requested medical examinations regarding her catastrophic impairment claim.

The Divisional Court issued a Rule 2.1 notice considering dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction over interlocutory LAT orders.

The court resolved conflicting lines of authority, affirming that it has no jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory LAT orders, though judicial review is available in exceptional circumstances.

The court struck the Notice of Appeal but granted the appellant leave to convert the proceeding into an application for judicial review.

The plaintiffs/appellants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Gorman J. dated June 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court allowed the motion for leave to appeal.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to judicially review the decision of an adjudicator.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Lavine J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $5,000.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision dismissing its motion to dismiss the respondent insurer's application for loss transfer indemnity under s. 275 of the Insurance Act.

The dispute arose after a pedestrian was struck by a vehicle insured by the appellant and claimed Statutory Accident Benefits under a motorcycle policy issued by the respondent to the pedestrian's father.

The Divisional Court upheld the arbitrator's findings that the priority scheme in s. 268 of the Insurance Act ranks insurers, not policies, and that the respondent was entitled to indemnification.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 19, 2022.

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

A group of patients sought leave to intervene in an appeal brought by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario regarding an interlocutory stay of a s. 87 application to compel a physician's cooperation with an investigation.

The patients sought to protect their privacy interests in their medical records.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to intervene, finding it premature as the appeal only concerned the interlocutory stay and not the underlying application.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the patients' right to renew their motion if the underlying application proceeds.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated July 11, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondents in the fixed amount of $21,000 all inclusive.

The appellant entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for a property and paid a $40,000 deposit.

The transaction failed to close because the appellant could not secure financing.

The appellant sought the return of the deposit, arguing there was an oral agreement that it would be refunded if the sale failed.

The application judge dismissed the application, applying the parol evidence rule to exclude the oral agreement and finding no grounds for relief from forfeiture.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's findings that the written contract governed and that the deposit forfeiture was not unconscionable.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent $292,000 in damages for oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

The trial judge found the appellant engaged in oppressive conduct by failing to keep proper financial records, using company funds for personal expenses, and misappropriating funds through an undisclosed arrangement with another company.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings of oppression and the damages awarded for loss of profits and personal expenses.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the $182,000 award for loss of business value, finding it was an error in principle because the parties had agreed to wind up the business and distribute net assets, making book value or fair market value irrelevant.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision regarding his entitlement to an Income Replacement Benefit (IRB) and a special award following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the LAT erred in calculating his IRB by deducting post-accident income, failing to quantify ongoing benefits, and denying a special award for unreasonable delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LAT correctly applied the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule to calculate the IRB, reasonably exercised its discretion in finding the ongoing quantum issue moot, and applied the correct legal test in denying the special award.

The appellants appealed an order requiring them to produce their former lawyers' file in a medical negligence action.

The respondents sought the file to support a limitation period defence, arguing the appellants' former lawyers' file was relevant to the incapable plaintiff's capacity and whether his brother acted as a de facto litigation guardian, and that privilege had been impliedly waived.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that instructing counsel does not make one a de facto litigation guardian, and that the appellants had not impliedly waived solicitor-client privilege over the file.