Civil Litigation - Defendant - ONCA

The Centre for Free Expression (CFE) sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in a civil appeal arising from the dismissal of a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (Ontario) in a defamation action.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario, per Roberts J.A., dismissed the motion for intervention, finding that while CFE had a clear mandate and interest in freedom of expression issues, its proposed submissions would not provide a distinct or useful contribution beyond those of the parties.

The court emphasized that intervention is to be granted sparingly, particularly in private disputes, and that the issues raised by CFE were already adequately addressed by the parties.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered a motion by Sandra Di Nardo to stay the enforcement of a judgment and related contempt orders pending her appeal in a contentious estate matter.

The court clarified the scope of its jurisdiction to grant a stay, distinguishing between orders that are and are not under appeal, and ultimately granted a temporary stay of the contempt order and warrant of committal pending a motion in the Superior Court.

The court found that the criteria for a stay were met, as the appeal could be rendered moot without interim relief.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Janina Joseph-Walker's motion to set aside the administrative dismissal of her appeal and to extend the time for perfection of her appeal in a mortgage enforcement matter.

The court found that Joseph-Walker failed to show a continuing intention to appeal, did not adequately explain her delay, and that her grounds of appeal had no merit.

The court also noted that the equities favoured AST Trust Company (Canada), as Joseph-Walker had been in default for over three years and had registered subsequent mortgages without notice.

Costs of $3,000 were awarded to AST.

The moving party, Susan Henderson, sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a judgment dismissing her application to challenge the validity of her late mother’s 2018 Will.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion, finding no merit to the proposed appeal and noting a pattern of delay and unreasonable conduct by the moving party.

The court emphasized the need for finality in estate matters and awarded costs to the responding party.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of 170 Willowdale Investments Corp. regarding the distribution of proceeds from the sale of its hotel assets in receivership.

The appellant argued that Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), as an unsecured creditor with respect to the real property, should not receive a distribution from the net proceeds of the sale.

The court held that the Approval and Vesting Order (AVO) did not preclude payment to unsecured creditors after secured creditors were paid, and that the motion judge properly authorized the distribution to RBC, including for a loan not yet due, as there was no prejudice to the debtor.

The appellants appealed an order striking their Statement of Defence for failing to comply with interlocutory orders and documentary disclosure obligations.

The motion judge had found deliberate non-compliance over 2.5 years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, upholding the striking of the Statement of Defence, finding the motion judge's decision was open on the record, legally sound, appropriate, and proportionate given the lengthy and deliberate delay.

The court also dismissed the argument for a "last chance" order.

However, the court granted leave to appeal costs and reduced the costs of the action from $5,000 to $3,000 due to a calculation error.

K.F. sought an extension of time to file her notice of appeal regarding a family law order concerning parenting, child, and spousal support.

The underlying trial involved allegations of domestic violence, coercive control, and sexual assault against J.J.W., which the trial judge rejected, finding K.F.'s evidence unreliable and that she had influenced their child's narrative.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

The court found the proposed appeal lacked merit, appearing frivolous and vexatious, and that granting the extension would cause significant prejudice to the child and J.J.W. by hindering the reunification process and re-litigating previously rejected allegations.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order, raising two issues: the respondent's failure to produce foundational expert documents and the untimely disclosure of a settlement agreement.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision not to dismiss or stay the action on either ground.

The court upheld the motion judge's finding that the settlement agreement did not "entirely change the litigation landscape" and was not a Pierringer agreement requiring disclosure.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The moving parties sought security for costs of an appeal arising from mortgage disputes.

The responding parties (appellants) had defaulted on mortgages, and proceeds from power of sale were paid into court.

The motion judge ordered payment of these funds to the moving parties, which the responding parties appealed.

The Court of Appeal granted security for costs under Rule 61.06(1)(a) and (c), finding the appeal frivolous and vexatious with a low prospect of success, and that the appellants had insufficient assets or would be difficult to collect from.

The appellant, Grandfield Homes (Kenton) Ltd., appealed a lower court decision that denied its request for a trial on damages beyond forfeited deposits in a failed residential real estate transaction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding that the claim for additional damages was not sufficiently pleaded in the notice of application or supporting evidence.

The court emphasized that relief sought must be precisely stated in pleadings and that counsel's confirmation during cross-examination that additional damages were not sought in the application was binding.

The court also agreed that ordering a separate trial on damages would result in an unnecessary bifurcation and multiplicity of proceedings, causing potential prejudice to the respondent.

The appellant, 9383859 Canada Ltd., failed to comply with orders to post security for costs for two groups of respondents (the Ramesh Respondents and the Saeed Respondents).

These respondents brought motions under Rule 61.06(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the appeal.

The court denied the appellant's request for an adjournment and dismissed the appeals, finding no valid excuse for non-compliance and that the original security for costs orders were properly made due to the appellant's insufficient assets and weak grounds of appeal.

The court declined to award costs personally against Sandeep Singh, the appellant's sole shareholder and director, finding his litigation strategy did not amount to an abuse of process.

The appellant, Bluemoon Capital Ltd., appealed the dismissal of its application for a Norwich order and the quashing of a Rule 39.03 notice of examination.

The appellant, a shareholder of Ceridian HCM Holding Inc., sought pre-action discovery regarding the alleged undervaluation of LifeWorks Corporation Ltd. shares during Ceridian's 2018 distribution and subsequent sale to Morneau Shepell.

The application judge dismissed the Norwich order, finding it unnecessary and not in the interests of justice, and quashed the notice of examination as moot.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error, affirming the application judge's discretionary decision that the appellant had sufficient information to commence its class action and that the Norwich order was not sought for a legitimate purpose.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment that dismissed their action against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), alleging that an H1N1 vaccine manufactured by GSK caused their five-year-old daughter's death.

The appeal raised issues concerning GSK's duty to warn (including the learned intermediary rule), its post-marketing commitments, the inference of negligence from circumstantial evidence, and costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings that GSK adequately warned the learned intermediary (the physician), met its post-marketing obligations, and that the appellants failed to prove negligence or causation on a balance of probabilities.

The court also upheld the trial judge's discretionary costs award.

The appellant commenced an action to enforce Minutes of Settlement regarding the termination of his employment.

He then commenced a second action against his employer and its principal based on the underlying conduct.

The motion judge dismissed the second action as an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the Minutes of Settlement and final release governed the parties' relationship and the underlying conduct was no longer relevant.

The appellants appealed an order refusing to allow their pleadings to be amended to include a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, expressing serious reservations that the conduct constituted a breach of fiduciary duty, and agreeing with the motions judge's alternative finding of laches.

The respondent commenced a wrongful dismissal action after being terminated.

The appellant employer brought a motion to dismiss the action, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because the respondent was covered by a collective agreement.

The motions judge dismissed the motion, finding the respondent exercised managerial functions and was not an employee under the Labour Relations Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motions judge lacked jurisdiction to determine the respondent's status.

Under the exclusive jurisdiction model, the question of whether a dispute is arbitrable must be determined by an arbitrator.

The action was stayed pending arbitration.

The appellants appealed a judgment granted in favour of the respondent bank.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's conclusion that the bank was entitled to judgment.

However, based on fresh evidence admitted on consent, the court varied the judgment amount to $101,941.26.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed with costs.

The appellant's gas station leaked gasoline, contaminating the respondent's adjacent commercial property.

The trial judge awarded damages for remediation to a pristine state, stigma damages, a barrier, and prejudgment interest.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the award for remediation to a pristine state but struck the $350,000 award for stigma damages, finding no evidence of residual value loss once a property is restored to a pristine condition.

The court also replaced a mandatory injunction with a monetary award for a barrier and set aside the prejudgment interest to avoid double recovery, as damages were assessed at the date of trial.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action for inducing breach of contract on a motion for summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal found that the motions judge correctly applied the governing principles for summary judgment and that the plaintiff failed to show a genuine issue for trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment finding him liable for misappropriating funds from an estate.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of liability, agreeing there was no genuine issue for trial on that point.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the quantum of recovery, finding that the motions judge erred by compounding interest and that a genuine issue for trial existed regarding amounts that should have been credited to the appellant.

The judgment was set aside and the motion for summary judgment was dismissed with respect to the amount of recovery.