Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of Nadeau J. dated August 22, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no Costs Outline was provided, the court ordered no costs.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the fixed amount of $3,682.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the Ontario Land Tribunal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party failed to file a costs outline.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying certain statutory accident benefits.

The Divisional Court found that the LAT adjudicator denied the appellant procedural fairness by unilaterally separating her hearing from her mother's, drastically reducing the scheduled hearing time without adequate notice, and refusing to allow cross-examination of the respondent's occupational therapist whose report had been materially altered by an assessment company.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The moving parties brought a motion for mandamus and related relief in the context of an ongoing landlord and tenant appeal.

The Divisional Court struck out the motion as an abuse of process, noting the moving parties' stream of vexatious attacks on scheduling orders.

The court ordered that the moving parties are foreclosed from bringing any further motions or proceedings in the court without prior permission from the case management judge.

The moving party, 2B Developments, sought an order staying the trial judge's final order which dismissed its action, discharged its construction lien, and awarded damages to the respondent.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Divisional Court found that the appeal raised serious issues to be tried, including procedural fairness and the trial judge's finding of fraud.

The court held that 2B would suffer irreparable harm if the stay were refused because the discharge of a construction lien is irrevocable, resulting in the permanent loss of a statutory right.

Finding the balance of convenience favoured 2B, the court granted the motion to stay the discharge of the lien pending appeal.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering him to pay over $34,000 in outstanding credit card and line of credit debt to the respondent bank.

The appellant, who was self-represented, argued the claim was statute-barred, the trial judge was biased, and the court erred in admitting business records without an affidavit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the claim was commenced within the limitation period before being transferred to Small Claims Court.

The court also held the trial judge fulfilled her duties to the self-represented litigant, properly admitted the bank's business records through oral testimony, and correctly applied the contractual interest rates.

The applicant, an Ontario resident seeking to qualify as a lawyer in Manitoba, brought an application for judicial review of a decision by the Canadian Centre for Professional Legal Education (CPLED) dismissing his appeal after he failed the bar admission course.

The respondent brought a motion to determine whether Ontario had jurisdiction to hear the application.

The Divisional Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to judicially review a decision made under the legislation of another province by an extra-provincial body.

Applying the real and substantial connection test, the court found that the applicant's mere residence in Ontario was insufficient to establish jurisdiction, and dismissed the application.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision dated September 25, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $3,000.

The appellants sought to appeal a motion judge's order granting partial summary judgment, which terminated a commercial lease and made declarations regarding a corporate bank account.

The respondent argued the order was interlocutory and required leave to appeal under s. 19(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Divisional Court held that the order was final because it finally disposed of substantive rights and pleaded issues, leaving nothing for trial.

Consequently, the appeal lies to the Divisional Court as of right under s. 19(1)(a).

The moving party brought two motions: one to appoint a litigation guardian and another for an extension of time to appeal a trial decision.

The court granted the motion to appoint the moving party's common law spouse as litigation guardian, finding the requirements of Rule 7 were met.

The court also granted the extension of time to appeal on terms, noting the delay was largely explained by the self-represented moving party mistakenly filing the appeal in the Court of Appeal instead of the Divisional Court, and finding no real prejudice to the responding party.

A child rights organization brought a motion for leave to intervene in a judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board.

The underlying complaint alleged a doctor improperly conducted a genital examination on an Indigenous child without appropriate consent.

The court granted leave to intervene, finding the organization would provide a useful and different perspective on the rights of the child and their intersecting vulnerabilities, and that the case raised issues of public importance beyond a private dispute.

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 11, 2023.

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

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 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 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 appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for statutory accident benefits due to her failure to provide a reasonable explanation for notifying the insurer outside the prescribed timelines.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider the appellant's argument that section 32(10) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule provides the only consequence for late delivery of an application without a reasonable excuse, and by incorrectly concluding this was a new issue on reconsideration.

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

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering him to pay $22,853.53 for building materials.

He argued the Deputy Judge failed to provide sufficient reasons regarding his complaint that the materials supplied were of the wrong type, nature, or colour.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the oral reasons were sufficient given the informal context of the Small Claims Court, as the Deputy Judge clearly rejected the appellant's credibility and noted he had installed and continued to use the materials.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of an Associate Justice.

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