Civil Litigation - Defendant - ONCA

The appellant sold a property to the respondent subject to a vendor take-back mortgage, which required the appellant to remove an easement from title by a specific deadline to avoid a reduction in the purchase price.

The appellant obtained a court order discharging the easement and registered it on title before the deadline.

The respondent argued the condition was not met because the order was still subject to appeal at the deadline.

The Court of Appeal held that the registered discharge order satisfied the mortgage condition, as the land titles system guarantees title upon registration and no stay of the order had been sought.

The appellant attended a Kiss concert at the Canadian Tire Centre in Ottawa and was removed by security staff.

He commenced an action claiming damages for discrimination, harassment, intentional infliction of nervous shock, mental distress, loss of income, loss of reputation and loss of business.

Claims against McGhee Entertainment and Kiss were dismissed for failing to disclose a cause of action.

A motion to dismiss against Gene Simmons was granted on the basis that the sole claim was for discrimination, which is prohibited from proceeding as a standalone action under the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The appellant appealed the dismissal order against Simmons without asserting any alleged error of law.

Simmons brought a motion to quash the appeal as devoid of merit.

The appellant appealed a libel judgment arising from nine online blog posts published during and after a human rights tribunal proceeding.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s findings that multiple statements were defamatory, that the appellant acted with malice, and that malice defeated any otherwise available fair comment defence.

Although the court held that describing the respondent as an anti-Semite was opinion rather than fact, that error did not affect the outcome because the malice finding remained dispositive.

The court also upheld the damages award of $50,000 in general damages and $30,000 in aggravated damages, together with appeal costs to the respondent.

The respondent, a Canadian businessman, brought a libel action in Ontario against an Israeli newspaper regarding an article published online and in print.

The appellants moved to stay the action, arguing Ontario lacked jurisdiction, Israel was a more appropriate forum, and the action was an abuse of process.

The motion judge dismissed the stay motion, finding Ontario had jurisdiction based on the tort being committed in Ontario, and that Israel was not clearly a more appropriate forum.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings on jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.

The appellant trustee in bankruptcy appealed a trial judge's decision allowing the secured claims of a nominee company controlled by the respondent.

The appellant argued that the claims were barred by a full and final mutual release previously executed by the respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made an extricable error of law by failing to consider the release as a whole.

Properly interpreted, the release captured successor corporations under the respondent's control, including the nominee company, and barred the claims.

The appellants appealed an order recognizing the respondents' common user rights over narrow parcels of land fronting Lake Simcoe, known as the 'Slivers'.

The application judge found that the respondents, as owners of lots in the subdivision, had openly and continuously used the Slivers since 1950, satisfying the requirements under the Registry Act and Land Titles Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's assessment of the uncontradicted affidavit evidence and declining to restrict the user rights to bathing purposes.

The appellant receiver sought to appeal an interlocutory order refusing to cancel a letter of credit posted as security in a civil action.

The receiver argued the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction under s. 193 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act because the motion was styled in both the civil action and the receivership proceedings.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that the substance of the order was a refusal to vary an order in a civil action, not an order in bankruptcy proceedings.

The proper route of appeal was to the Divisional Court with leave.

The appellants sued the respondent physicians for damages, including the difference between their actual legal fees and the costs awarded in prior proceedings regarding the withdrawal of life support, as well as damages for various torts based on a pre-litigation letter sent by the respondents' counsel.

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

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the claim for legal fees was barred by issue estoppel and the tort claims were barred by the doctrine of absolute privilege, as the letter was intimately connected to contemplated judicial proceedings.

The plaintiff brought an action in Ontario against Ontario and non-Ontario defendants, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of mining opportunities in Peru.

The non-Ontario defendants brought a motion to stay or dismiss the action on jurisdictional and forum non conveniens grounds, and challenged the validity of service ex juris.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding a real and substantial connection to Ontario, that Ontario was the appropriate forum, and that service ex juris was valid.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, clarifying that the real and substantial connection test is the exclusive framework for determining assumed jurisdiction over out-of-province defendants, subsuming remedy-specific tests.

The appellant insurer sought contribution from the respondent insurer for a $2.75 million settlement paid to a student injured at a university judo club.

Coverage under the respondent's policy depended on whether the club was a 'member club' of the provincial judo association at the time of the accident.

Although the club had not paid its annual fees, the Court of Appeal found that under the association's by-laws, membership continues until formal suspension or expulsion.

Since no such action was taken, the club remained a member, and the respondent's policy provided coverage.

The appeal was allowed.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice that struck a jury notice and ordered security for costs.

The respondents brought motions to quash the appeal on the basis that the order was interlocutory, not final, and therefore the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal agreed, holding that while the right to a jury trial is a substantive right, an order striking a jury notice is collateral and does not determine the substantive issues in dispute.

The security for costs order was also held to be procedural and interlocutory.

The motions to quash the appeals were granted, with the Court noting that the delay caused by appealing to the wrong court should not be held against the appellant if he seeks leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to set aside a default judgment.

He argued that his delay in responding to the statement of claim was adequately explained and that he had a triable defence of economic duress regarding a collection agreement, claiming the respondent barricaded his moving equipment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's rejection of the delay explanation and concluding that the facts did not establish a triable defence of economic duress, as the appellant had other practical alternatives and waited over a year to raise concerns.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment enforcing their personal guarantees of a corporate debt.

They argued that the respondent creditor failed to disclose a material fact: an alleged arrangement limiting the liability of a third co-guarantor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no evidence that the respondent intended to deceive or knew the appellants were signing under false premises.

Furthermore, the appellants failed to provide evidence that they relied on the co-guarantor's guarantee or that they would not have signed had they known of the alleged arrangement.

Following the release of its decision on the merits, the Court of Appeal considered costs submissions.

The court noted that at first instance, the parties did not suggest that no costs should be awarded because it was a case of first impression.

The court set aside the lower court's costs order of $10,000 to the respondent and instead awarded the appellant $10,000 for the proceedings at first instance.

The appellant was also awarded $15,000 for the costs of the appeal.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action based on a release executed in a prior action.

The appellant argued the release did not cover the current claims or protect respondents who were not parties to it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the release was unambiguous and barred the action, as the appellant knew the essential elements of the claims when he signed it.

The Court also agreed that the release protected the non-party respondents because it applied to agents and the claims shared the same factual underpinnings.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application seeking a declaration that certain lands in Ontario are not public lands available for disposition or regulation by the Crown.

The motion judge struck the application on the basis that the courts lack authority to adjudicate challenges to Canada's sovereignty.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the appellant's claim amounted to a challenge to sovereign jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant insurer issued a comprehensive general liability policy to the respondent insured.

The insured was sued for wrongful dismissal, including allegations of intentional racial and age discrimination.

The insurer sought a declaration that it owed no duty to defend the discrimination claims.

The application judge ruled the insurer was required to provide a defence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the fortuity principle of insurance law dictates that liability policies only cover accidental or fortuitous losses.

Because the underlying claims alleged intentional discrimination, they fell outside the scope of the policy, and the insurer had no duty to defend.

The appellant tenant appealed a motions judge's decision which found that his lease did not include the basement premises of the property.

The Court of Appeal held that the motions judge ignored relevant evidence, including a note on a schedule attached to the lease and an affidavit from the original landlord confirming the basement's inclusion.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the motions judge's decision, and dismissed the respondent landlord's application, concluding that the basement was part of the demised premises.

The appellant sold corn to the respondents, stating it was 'good corn'.

The corn contained toxic substances and caused damage to the respondents' pigs.

The trial judge found that the appellant's statement constituted a warranty that the corn was suitable for feeding to pigs, and awarded damages of $36,500.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was open to the trial judge to conclude that the appellant assumed the risk that the corn would not be suitable for the respondents' pigs.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his occupiers' liability action arising from injuries sustained when he rode his bicycle into ropes strung across a driveway.

He argued that the jury charge was fatally defective because it misstated the relevance of unusual use of the premises and effectively removed from the jury the role of a neighbouring for sale sign as an attraction to the property.

The court held that, read as a whole, the charge correctly focused the jury on whether the respondents maintained the premises in a reasonably safe condition and did not create reversible error.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the contingent cross-appeal on damages was dismissed without costs.