Civil Litigation - Defendant - ONCA

The appellant, Sajjad Asghar, appealed the Superior Court's dismissal of his action and the grant of summary judgment in favour of the respondent, Dial and File Process Servers Inc. The original action sought summary judgment against the respondent for not timely returning legal documents.

The motion judge found no liability on the part of the respondent for any asserted causes of action (fraud, breach of contract, Consumer Protection Act) and granted summary judgment to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's comprehensive analysis and dismissed the appeal, affirming that the respondent did nothing wrong.

The appellant, through her litigation guardian, appealed a Divisional Court decision that reversed a certification order for a proposed class action against the Government of Ontario.

The class action alleged negligence in the administration of services for adults with developmental disabilities and a breach of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal found that the Divisional Court erred in recharacterizing the negligence claim as impugning core policy decisions and in striking the section 7 Charter claim.

The Court held that the negligence claim concerned operational failures within existing resources, and the section 7 claim alleged psychological harm from the arbitrary administration of waitlists for approved services, which was not foreclosed by existing jurisprudence.

The appeal was allowed, restoring the motion judge's certification order.

Hampton Securities Limited appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing its claim against Joseph Tassone for accumulated trading losses in an inventory account.

The motion judge found that the employment contract did not impose personal liability on Tassone for losses exceeding his personal reserve account.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's interpretation of the employment contract terms and rejection of an implied indemnity obligation.

The court distinguished the case from Refco Futures on its facts and rejected Hampton's arguments regarding industry practice and notice period issues.

The moving party, Economical Insurance Group, brought a motion to extend the time to perfect its appeal after the responding party, State Farm, unreasonably delayed settling the order under appeal.

State Farm refused to approve the draft order in a misguided attempt to thwart Economical's right of appeal, forcing the motion.

Although the extension was ultimately agreed upon, the Court of Appeal strongly criticized State Farm's litigation gamesmanship and awarded Economical $5,000 in partial indemnity costs for the motion.

The respondent sought costs for a previous motion where the appellant was ordered to pay $15,000 into court as security for costs.

The Court of Appeal declined to award costs for the motion, despite the respondent's reference to a previous offer to settle.

No order as to costs was made.

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

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's reasons and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs of $5,000 to the respondent.

The appellant, a law clerk, appealed a summary judgment dismissing his fourth party claim against a former articling student/associate for contribution and indemnity in a solicitor negligence action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing the claim was misconceived as the principal solicitor was responsible for the associate's actions.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on costs, reducing the substantial indemnity costs award from $25,000 to $17,000, finding the appellant's counsel did not mislead the court and the allegations in the pleadings were not entirely irrelevant.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that dismissed its claim for a commission and unjust enrichment.

The trial judge found there was no agreement to pay the appellant in the absence of a completed transaction, and the appellant failed to prove unjust enrichment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's findings or conclusions and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The respondent sought to maintain only its claim for damages.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the claim for damages was not foreclosed by res judicata and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The appellant appealed a judgment where the motion judge refused his request for an adjournment and proceeded as if the application was unopposed.

The self-represented appellant was present but was not permitted to make any submissions before losing over $500,000.

The Court of Appeal held this was a complete denial of natural justice, allowed the appeal, and set aside the judgment below.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a trial judge's decision disallowing its claims for security services and realty taxes against the respondent, who owned a commercial underground parking garage below the condominium.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's interpretation of the Parking Garage Agreement, finding no obligation for the respondent to pay for security services and affirming a subsequent agreement regarding realty taxes.

The respondent's cross-appeal was allowed in part to correct the formal judgment and to declare claims prior to July 4, 1995, statute-barred.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment declaring that the parties had entered into a binding and enforceable settlement agreement.

The agreement required the appellant to deliver a final version of a DVD in exchange for an additional $10,000 payment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no genuine issue for trial, as the appellant's counsel had clearly and unequivocally accepted the offer via email.

The court also rejected arguments of economic duress and repudiation.

The Chief Justice of Ontario issued a Practice Direction concerning civil appeals in the Court of Appeal, effective January 1, 2004.

The Practice Direction provides guidance on the application of the Rules of Civil Procedure, addressing the court, notices of appeal, motions, appeal management, pre-hearing conferences, perfecting appeals, scheduling, costs, and post-hearing submissions.

The appellants, comprising children of residential school attendees and estates of deceased attendees, appealed an order striking their claims against the federal Crown and other defendants.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, reinstating the secondary plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the federal Crown, finding it was not plain and obvious that the duty did not extend to them despite not being born at the time of the alleged breaches.

However, the Court upheld the striking of the Family Law Act claims, as the Act does not operate retroactively, and the estate claims, which were statute-barred under the Trustee Act.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their action under Rule 24.01(1)(c).

The parties agreed the rule could not be invoked because the respondents had not served their affidavit of documents.

However, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal on the alternative ground that the action was an abuse of process, citing inordinate unexplained delay since 1996, conduct in prior related litigation, and failure to comply with a previous court order.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants brought a motion for an order directing the trial of certain issues allegedly outstanding from a 1993 judgment based on Minutes of Settlement.

The motions judge directed a trial on only some issues and stayed a subsequent 1999 action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants failed to meet their evidentiary burden to support the requested order.

The appellant appealed an order setting aside a civil jury verdict and directing a new trial after the trial judge concluded there was no evidence to support the jury's finding.

The dispute arose from a creditor's claim, authorized under s. 38 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, to recover from settlement proceeds allegedly attributable to the respondent's pre-bankruptcy wage loss claim in motor vehicle litigation.

The Court of Appeal held there was some evidence from which the jury could infer that part of the settlement compensated pre-bankruptcy income loss, such that the trial judge erred in invoking the 'no evidence' rule under Rule 52.08(1)(c).

The appeal was allowed, judgment was entered for the appellant, and the respondent's cross-appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for declaratory and related relief arising from the respondent bank's freezing of her account and withdrawal of funds to cover an overdraft in a joint account held with her mother.

She argued that the applications judge failed to address non est factum and erred in not finding the bank negligent.

The court held that non est factum was not properly raised below and that the evidence did not obligate the applications judge to address it on his own motion.

The court further held that the bank was not negligent and that the appellant remained bound by her agreement to indemnify the bank for the overdraft.

The appeal was dismissed with fixed costs.

The moving party sought security for costs of an appeal from a summary judgment dismissing the action against him.

The court held that, although the criteria under rule 56.01(1)(d) were met, the determinative question was whether it was just to order security.

Given the appellants' insufficient assets in Ontario and the risk that appeal costs would be unrecoverable from non-resident parties, the court found it just to order further security.

The request to set security on a solicitor-client scale was refused because the appeal was not frivolous and raised a serious issue.

Security for costs of the appeal was fixed at $20,000, with costs of the motion to the moving party.

On an appeal from an application judgment concerning a non-profit airport authority's refusal to appoint a municipal nominee as member and director, the court upheld the declaration that the board acted contrary to its by-law.

The appeal turned on whether the board had clear and unambiguous evidence that the nominee would not at all times act in the authority's best interests.

The court held that neither the nominee's cautious interview answers nor the board's adverse credibility finding based on his subsequent letter could reasonably satisfy that stringent anticipatory standard.

The board's rejection of the nomination therefore fell outside the scope of its authority under the by-law, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.