Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Dubé J. dated October 11, 2023.

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

The appellants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Perell J. dated December 28, 2023.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court dated September 11, 2023.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the self-represented moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order of Kaufman J. The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding plaintiffs in the fixed amount of $5,000 all-inclusive.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion to certify a class action against the manufacturers of the prescription drug Celexa.

The proposed class action alleged a failure to warn that the drug is or may be a teratogen causing congenital malformations.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Class Proceedings Judge's findings that the proposed common issues lacked sufficient commonality due to the hundreds of potential congenital malformations with unique etiologies, and that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure because individual issues would overwhelm any common issues.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of S.T. Bale J. dated September 2, 2023.

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

The appellants appealed a decision granting the respondent's application for the return of a deposit after she terminated an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property due to a registered easement.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge committed a palpable and overriding error in concluding that the purchase agreement did not provide sufficient notice of the easement.

The agreement specifically referenced the easement in the legal description and the respondent failed to establish that the easement did not fall within the exception for minor utility easements.

The matter was returned to the application judge to determine damages.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 5, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $6,000.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their claim for property damage allegedly caused by water discharging from their neighbours' sump pump.

The trial judge found the appellants failed to prove causation on a balance of probabilities and noted other possible causes for the minor lawn indentation and concrete cracks.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate and there was no palpable and overriding error in her factual findings.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion under s. 21(5) of the Courts of Justice Act to set aside a decision dismissing his application for judicial review.

The applicant argued the motion judge erred in finding he lacked standing and that the court lacked jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motion judge's decision.

The respondent was awarded costs of $5,579.50.

The appellant/applicant sought to appeal and judicially review interlocutory decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding the striking out and destruction of certain evidence.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, as there is no right of appeal from an interlocutory LAT decision.

The court also dismissed the application for judicial review regarding the evidentiary rulings due to prematurity, but permitted the judicial review to proceed regarding the orders requiring the destruction of documents.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal two unreported decisions of the lower court.

The Divisional Court reviewed the written submissions of the parties.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the moving party was ordered to pay costs of $3,000 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

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 sought leave to appeal the order of the motion judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, noting a typographical error in the neutral citation of the underlying reasons for decision.

The appellant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Raikes J. dated July 5, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Valente J. dated April 6, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to His Majesty the King in the Right of Ontario in the amount of $1,822.50.

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of defence for failing to pay a $100,000 costs order and for a history of non-compliance with court orders, including a Mareva injunction and Anton Piller order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Associate Judge did not reverse the onus, properly considered the lack of evidence regarding the merits of the defence, and correctly identified a pattern of non-compliance rather than making a formal finding of contempt.

The court also rejected the appellant's new argument regarding family law support orders taking precedence, as it was not raised below.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of an oppression application involving two closely held companies, one incorporated under the OBCA and the other under the CBCA.

The Divisional Court noted a jurisdictional issue, as appeals under the CBCA lie to the Court of Appeal, while OBCA appeals lie to the Divisional Court.

To avoid divided jurisdiction, the Divisional Court transferred the CBCA appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 110 of the Courts of Justice Act and adjourned the OBCA appeal to allow the appellant to seek a transfer of that matter to the Court of Appeal under s. 6 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The self-represented applicant attempted to commence two fresh applications for judicial review regarding matters related to his ongoing criminal trial, including complaints about interpretation services and exhibit lists.

The Divisional Court had previously restricted the applicant's access to the court due to his repeated commencement of vexatious proceedings, requiring him to obtain prior permission before filing new matters.

Because the applicant failed to comply with this requirement, the court directed staff to refuse to issue the Notices of Application and cautioned the applicant about potential contempt proceedings.