Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The unrepresented appellant, through their litigation guardian, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Chalmers J. dated November 2, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered for or against any party.

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

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to each of the two responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Petersen J. dated July 11, 2023.

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

The defendants 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 awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Perfetto J. dated July 18, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered that there be no costs for or against any party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Leiper J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

The responding parties requested costs but failed to provide a Costs Outline as required, resulting in no costs being awarded.

Following the issuance of its decision on appeal, the court was informed that the respondent's counsel had fallen ill and could not meet the deadline to serve and file an amended pleading.

The appellants consented to an extension and requested that the requirement for the respondent's approval of the draft order be dispensed with so they could seek leave to appeal.

The court granted the extension and dispensed with the approval requirement.

The University of Toronto appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding a student $710.27 in general damages and $1,000 in punitive damages over a disputed tuition refund.

The student had dropped a full-year course after the refund deadline but argued the policy was ambiguous.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in fact and law.

The court held the university's calendar and refund policy clearly stated the financial penalties for late withdrawal, and the university's conduct did not meet the high threshold for punitive damages.

The original claim was dismissed.

The self-represented applicants brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a reconsideration decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal regarding accident benefits.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the applicants had a history of vexatious litigation and the appeal was devoid of merit.

The court granted the extension, finding the 12-day delay was not lengthy, the applicants had a bona fide intention to appeal, and the proposed ground of reasonable apprehension of bias was not utterly devoid of merit.

The extension was granted subject to strict terms, including case management, to address the respondent's concerns about the applicants' litigation conduct.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated October 3, 2022.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated September 8, 2022.

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

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated August 2, 2022.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Vermette J. dated August 31, 2022.

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 December 2, 2022.

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 Kimmel J. dated October 19, 2021.

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

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

The moving party brought a fresh evidence application and a motion for leave to appeal a prior order.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the application and the motion, awarding $5,000 in costs to the responding party.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario sought costs following the dismissal of an application for judicial review and related motions brought by a physician and her patients.

The applicants argued they were public interest litigants and should pay no costs, or alternatively, reduced costs.

The Divisional Court rejected the public interest litigant argument, finding the physician was pursuing private and pecuniary interests in a dispute with her regulator, and the patients lacked standing.

The court ordered the patients to pay $8,000 and the physician to pay $18,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Vella J. dated July 15, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay $5,000 in all-inclusive costs to the responding party.

The appellants appealed a decision granting a Certificate of Pending Litigation against their property after they terminated an Agreement of Purchase and Sale.

The appellants argued the motion judge failed to consider a schedule requiring direct deposit, improperly considered their subjective intentions, and erroneously assessed the property's uniqueness.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants could not raise the schedule interpretation for the first time on appeal, and that the motion judge made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing the equities or the uniqueness of the property.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to file a notice of motion for leave to appeal an interlocutory order that dismissed their request to rely on documents obtained in a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario proceeding.

The court applied the test for extending time and found that the proposed appeal lacked merit, as the documents were subject to the implied undertaking rule.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.