ONCA 2020

Following a successful appeal of a summary judgment order, a dispute arose regarding the settling of the court's order on costs.

The respondents argued that a portion of the motion judge's costs order related to a support motion should remain intact.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the appellant that the motion judge had awarded a global amount for all motions, which were intertwined.

The court clarified that the entire costs award below was set aside and reserved to the trial judge.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding that a settlement agreement between the parties was valid and enforceable.

The appellant argued there was no agreement on essential terms and that enforcement would lead to injustice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the appellant was represented by counsel when the terms were agreed to and that there were no material concerns.

A motion to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The respondent, having been entirely successful on the appeal of a family law matter, sought partial indemnity costs of $53,407.33.

The appellant argued the costs should not exceed $18,789.66.

The Court of Appeal applied the principle that costs must be fair, reasonable, and proportionate.

Acknowledging the voluminous record and the importance of the issues, including child custody, the court fixed the costs payable by the appellant to the respondent at $35,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellant loaned money secured by mortgages to a corporation.

The mortgage contained a condition increasing the interest rate from 12 percent to 21 percent if the mortgage matured and was not paid, or upon default.

The motion judge found this condition violated s. 8 of the Interest Act and that a subsequent renewal agreement was invalid because it lacked a required guarantor's signature.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the interest rate increase was triggered by default, thus offending s. 8, and that the indoor management rule did not apply because the appellant knew or ought to have known the signature was required.

The appellant pleaded guilty to firearms trafficking after his pre-trial application to exclude historical text messages obtained via a production order was dismissed.

On appeal, he sought to withdraw his guilty plea and argued that the production order provision was unconstitutional because it lacked an investigative necessity requirement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that investigative necessity is not a constitutional requirement for wiretaps or production orders, and that the distinction between historical and prospective text message searches is not arbitrary.

The appellant appealed a trial decision determining the terminus of a lot line between two waterfront properties on a controlled lake.

The trial judge found that the term 'High Water Mark' on the registered plan unambiguously referred to the Normal Controlled High Water Level.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the term created a latent ambiguity and that the original subdivider intended to convey all the land it owned, which extended to the water's edge at the time of the 1902 Crown patent.

The matter was remitted to the trial court to determine the water's edge at the time of the Crown patent and the effects of any subsequent erosion or accretion.

The appellant's land was expropriated by the respondent municipality.

After years of delay and litigation, the appellant rejected a settlement offer of $1.2 million.

The Ontario Municipal Board ultimately awarded compensation of $710,000 and ordered costs against the appellant from the date of the settlement offer.

The appellant appealed, arguing that 'amount offered' under s. 32 of the Expropriations Act refers only to the initial statutory offer under s. 25, and that costs cannot be awarded against an expropriated party.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 32 encompasses subsequent offers and that the Board retains discretion to award costs against a claimant to encourage settlement and sanction unreasonable conduct.

The appellants sued their former lawyers for solicitor's negligence following a finding of securities fraud by the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC).

The motion judge dismissed the majority of the claims as an abusive collateral attack on the OSC decision, relying on the doctrine of issue estoppel, but ordered a mini-trial under Rule 20.04(2.2) for the remaining claim regarding negligent settlement advice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, confirming that civil claims depending on showing a conviction would not have occurred but for a lawyer's conduct constitute an improper collateral attack.

The Court also held there is no basis to appeal an order directing a mini-trial as part of a summary judgment process.

The Receiver brought a motion for directions to determine whether the Court of Appeal or the Divisional Court has jurisdiction over an appeal concerning a priority dispute between registered lien claimants and a registered mortgage in a receivership.

The motions judge held that a single judge of the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to decide whether an appeal lies within the court's jurisdiction, as this must be decided by a three-judge panel.

The motion was adjourned to be heard by a panel.

The appellant's banquet hall suffered significant damage following an unusually severe rainstorm.

The insurer paid the $500,000 limit under a sewer backup endorsement but denied coverage under a flood endorsement and for business interruption losses.

The trial judge dismissed the appellant's claims.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in importing a surface water exclusion into the flood endorsement, finding that the massive influx of water constituted a flood.

The appellant was awarded $429,329.18 under the flood endorsement based on a prior appraisal award.

The court upheld the dismissal of the claims for business interruption losses, extra-contractual damages, and professional fees.

The appellant mother took her three children from Kuwait to Canada without the respondent father's consent and claimed refugee status, alleging domestic violence.

The father applied for the children's return to Kuwait.

The application judge ordered the children returned, finding no risk of serious harm under s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the application judge erred by rejecting uncontradicted expert evidence that the children's fears of their father were independent and not influenced by the mother.

The Court also held that ordering the children's return before their refugee claims were determined violated the principle of non-refoulement.

The appeal was allowed and a custody hearing was ordered in Ontario.

The employee worked for a company for 36 years before its assets were sold to the appellant.

The appellant hired the employee, but laid her off after one month.

The employee sued for wrongful dismissal and was granted summary judgment based on the motion judge's finding that her employment was continuous under the common law, mirroring the Employment Standards Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that summary judgment was inappropriate due to material factual disputes regarding the terms of her new employment.

The Court clarified that at common law, a sale of a business results in constructive dismissal, and while a successor employer must give some recognition to prior service when assessing reasonable notice, it is not a seamless continuation of employment.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and breaches of probation, as well as his 40-month sentence.

He argued the trial judge unevenly scrutinized his credibility compared to the complainant cab driver, and that the sentencing judge failed to apply the jump principle and give appropriate weight to his rehabilitation efforts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's credibility findings.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the increased violence of the robbery justified the sentence and the judge properly considered the appellant's rehabilitation efforts, except the victim surcharge was set aside.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the respondents sought full indemnity costs, relying on an unresponded settlement offer and rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal declined to award full indemnity costs, noting that costs generally follow the event on a partial indemnity basis unless there is sanctionable conduct during the appeal.

Finding no such conduct, the court awarded the respondents partial indemnity costs of $11,000 all-inclusive.

The Empowerment Council and the Criminal Lawyers' Association brought motions for leave to intervene in an appeal from a decision of the Ontario Review Board.

The underlying appeal concerned whether the failure to provide resources for supportive community housing breached the appellant's rights under section 7 of the Charter, and whether the Board had remedial jurisdiction to order funding.

The court dismissed the Empowerment Council's motion, finding its proposed intervention on the Board's inquisitorial role would not assist the court.

The court granted the Criminal Lawyers' Association's motion to intervene solely on the issue of the Board's remedial Charter jurisdiction to make funding orders.

During a legal strike, graduate student teaching assistants engaged in picketing and protests.

Following the strike, the university disciplined them under the Student Code of Conduct.

The students sought judicial review, arguing that under the Back to Class Act and the Labour Relations Act, a labour arbitrator had exclusive jurisdiction over discipline related to strike activities.

The Divisional Court agreed and quashed the university tribunal's decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the university's appeal, confirming that the specific, strike-ending legislation mandated that any dispute concerning discipline for activities during the strike be determined through grievance arbitration.

The tenants entered into a commercial lease with the landlord.

The landlord served a notice of breach for failing to provide copies of insurance policies, and subsequently terminated the lease and re-entered the premises.

The application judge found the notice invalid under s. 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act because it lacked a demand for monetary compensation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a demand for monetary compensation is not mandatory and may be waived by the landlord if they do not intend to insist on recovery for damages compensable in money.

The appellants were convicted of trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine following a lengthy police surveillance operation dubbed 'Project Odyssey'.

On appeal, they argued the trial judge erred in his handling of a confidential informant privilege application, in refusing to stay proceedings for alleged police misconduct, and in rendering unreasonable verdicts based on circumstantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the in camera, ex parte procedure used for the privilege claim, upholding the trial judge's factual findings regarding police conduct, and concluding the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly supported the convictions.

The appellant, a young Indigenous woman, pleaded guilty to importing cocaine.

The sentencing judge rejected her s. 15 Charter challenge to s. 742.1(c) of the Criminal Code, which precluded a conditional sentence for her offence, and imposed a 17-month custodial sentence.

On appeal, the appellant argued that s. 742.1(c) and (e)(ii) violated ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the provisions violated s. 15 by discriminating against Aboriginal offenders and s. 7 by being overbroad.

The provisions were struck down, and a sentence of time served was substituted.

Following the dismissal of the appeal, the court received written submissions on costs.

The court awarded costs of the appeal to the respondent in the amount of $17,500, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.