Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ODC

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of P.W. Nicholson J. and a subsequent costs order.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from the order of McCarthy J. dated November 12, 2020.

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 a costs order made by a Master.

The Divisional Court reviewed the matter in writing.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The court awarded costs fixed at $5,000 to the responding parties.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal from an order of a Master.

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

The moving party brought a motion to set aside minutes of settlement reached in a labour arbitration, attempting to file it under a previously quashed application for judicial review.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, noting it lacked jurisdiction.

After reviewing the moving party's written submissions, the court dismissed the motion as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The court found that the requested relief was not available in the Divisional Court and there was no active proceeding in which to bring the motion.

The respondent was successful on an appeal from the Small Claims Court and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant disputed the time spent by the respondent's counsel but failed to provide its own bill of costs for comparison.

The court held that absent a bill of costs from the losing party, an attack on the successful party's fees is merely an 'attack in the air'.

The court awarded the respondent costs of $9,813.26, finding the amount fair, reasonable, and proportionate to Small Claims Court litigation.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an order granting the plaintiffs leave to amend their statement of claim, arguing the new claims were statute-barred.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, clarifying that because the motions judge did not finally dispose of the limitations defence, the order was interlocutory.

The defendants remain free to plead the limitations defence in response to the amended claim at trial.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing a motion to void a lease in the context of an oppression application under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

The Divisional Court directed the parties to provide further written submissions on whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal in light of s. 249 of the Act, or alternatively, whether the underlying order was final and therefore appealable to the Court of Appeal rather than the Divisional Court.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision barring her civil action against the respondents for injuries sustained in a parking lot fall.

The Tribunal found that although the applicant was paid by a numbered company, the respondent Sargent Farms Limited was her de facto employer and she was in the course of her employment at the time of the accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's conclusion that the respondent extensively controlled her employment was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The moving party brought a motion to dismiss the responding party's appeal for delay.

The responding party had failed to perfect his appeal within the required time after receiving trial transcripts and failed to attend a scheduled case conference.

The court found that while the responding party may not intend to pursue the appeal, he should be given a final opportunity to perfect it.

The court ordered the responding party to perfect the appeal by a specified date, failing which the moving party could obtain an order dismissing the appeal.

The landlord brought a motion to require the tenants to pay rent arrears and ongoing rent as a condition of maintaining the statutory stay of an eviction order pending their appeal to the Divisional Court.

The landlord also sought security for costs.

The court found that the tenants' failure to pay rent while enjoying the protection of the statutory stay amounted to an abuse of process.

The court ordered the tenants to pay the outstanding arrears and ongoing rent to maintain the stay, but dismissed the request for security for costs to avoid unfairly burdening the tenants.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister of the Environment revoking their authority for a wind farm project.

Three procedural motions were brought: CanWEA sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court, the Landowners sought leave to intervene as parties, and the respondent moved to strike fresh evidence filed by the applicants.

The court granted CanWEA leave to intervene, denied the Landowners leave to intervene without prejudice to their right to bring a separate application, and adjourned the motion to strike evidence to the panel hearing the underlying application.

Following a successful appeal by the self-represented appellants, the Divisional Court determined the costs for both the Small Claims Court trial and the appeal.

The court applied the principles from Fong v. Chan, finding that the self-represented appellants were entitled to costs because they demonstrated an opportunity cost by foregoing remunerative activity to prepare for the appeal.

The respondent was ordered to pay a total of $14,512.32 in costs and disbursements to the appellants.

The respondent, a criminal defence lawyer, was arrested and charged with criminal harassment following complaints from his estranged wife.

He was acquitted and subsequently successfully sued the investigating police officers and the Crown for negligent investigation in Small Claims Court.

The appellants appealed the trial judge's finding of liability.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the action, finding that the trial judge erred in law by failing to apply the correct standard of care.

The court held that the officers had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the respondent and were not required to exhaust all possible avenues of investigation before laying charges.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering it to pay $25,000 in unpaid fees to the respondent.

The appellant argued it was denied procedural fairness because the Deputy Judge failed to read its lengthy written closing submissions before rendering the decision, and that the reasons provided were insufficient.

The Divisional Court agreed on both grounds, finding a clear denial of procedural fairness and that the brief reasons provided were incapable of meaningful appellate review.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The moving party brought a motion to set aside the Registrar's order dismissing his appeal for delay.

The moving party had been found guilty of professional misconduct for knowingly assisting in mortgage fraud, resulting in the revocation of his license to practice law.

The court found the moving party's reasons for delay uncompelling but noted there was no prejudice to the respondent.

The court granted the motion and set aside the Registrar's order on strict terms, requiring the appeal to be perfected within 21 days.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding him liable for credit card debt.

While conceding liability for one card, he disputed liability for a VISA Gold Card on which he was a secondary card holder, arguing his ex-wife opened the account and he never signed the application.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant's admitted use of the card rendered him liable for the balance.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant private school appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding tuition refunds to three international students who transferred to another school shortly after beginning their second year of study.

The trial judge found that the students had entered into new contracts for their second year and were unaware of the school's no-refund policy.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no legal error in the trial judge's conclusion that the refund policy was not part of the contract and that the students were entitled to refunds.

Despite dismissing the appeal, the court awarded $5,000 in costs to the appellant due to the significant time spent trying to serve the respondents, to be set off against the trial judgment.

The appellant, counsel for plaintiffs in the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement proceedings, appealed a decision of the Eastern Administrative Judge refusing to recuse himself from determining a request for costs against her personally.

The Divisional Court found that the judge's prior direction, which contained substantive findings against the appellant without notice or opportunity to respond, created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appeal was allowed, the costs orders were set aside, and the costs matter was remanded to a different judge.

The self-represented appellant brought a motion under Rule 61.09(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to perfect her appeal from a Small Claims Court decision without filing a trial transcript.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate that her appeal had apparent merit or that it could be appropriately argued without a transcript, given the nature of the evidentiary errors alleged.

Costs of $600 were awarded to the respondent.