Civil Litigation - Defendant - ONCA

Case management decision in a family law appeal.

The self-represented appellant sought to perfect his appeal without filing transcripts of the trial evidence, citing inability to pay the estimated $12,000 cost after Legal Aid declined coverage.

The case management judge denied the request, holding that transcripts of all oral evidence and rulings were necessary given the fact-intensive nature of the family law trial and the appellant's grounds of appeal alleging misapprehension of evidence and errors in findings of fact.

The appellant was given a deadline to file proof of ordering and partially paying for transcripts, failing which the respondent could move to dismiss the appeal for delay.

The appellants, Gianni Evangelisti and Freedom Pools Inc., appealed a lower court order dismissing their application for an injunction to prevent the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) from publishing a story about disputes with their customers.

The appeal raised grounds concerning the refusal of cross-examination, apprehension of bias, and dismissal of Charter claims.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's exercise of case management powers or the dismissal of the application on its merits, affirming that the conduct did not reflect bias.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal, arguing that the order appealed from was interlocutory and therefore the proper appeal route was to the Divisional Court with leave.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the order dismissing the appellant's motion to compel witness attendance for examination on jurisdictional grounds was interlocutory and did not finally dispose of any party rights.

As such, the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction, and the appeal was quashed.

The applicant sought a review of a motion judge's decision that dismissed her motion to extend the time to perfect her motion for leave to appeal from a Divisional Court order.

The Divisional Court had dismissed her application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision, noting unacceptable delay and lack of merit in the proposed appeal, as the underlying Human Rights Tribunal decision was fact-based and the Divisional Court found no question of law warranting intervention.

The review motion was dismissed.

The Cardillo Parties sought review of a chambers judge's decision that denied them an automatic right of appeal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA) and refused leave to appeal.

The chambers judge had found the underlying order to be procedural and that a single judge had the authority to determine the right of appeal and deny leave, applying the doctrine of paramountcy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Cardillo Parties' motion, affirming the chambers judge's findings that the decision was procedural, a single judge had the authority, and paramountcy applied, thus denying the appeal.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment ordering them to pay $185,999.32 under Minutes of Settlement and dismissing their counterclaim.

The appellants argued the Minutes were unenforceable due to economic duress, claiming they were pressured by a construction lien that prevented refinancing.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that there was no genuine issue for trial, as the appellants failed to satisfy the first prong of the economic duress test: they did not protest, had independent legal advice, had alternative courses of action, and took no timely steps to avoid the agreement.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party, having been successful, was awarded costs fixed at $5,000 all inclusive, payable within 30 days.

The applicants commenced an action against the Ontario Hockey Association and related entities and individuals.

After the respondents requested an extension to file a defence and the applicants confirmed they would not note them in default, the respondents were nonetheless noted in default one day after the deadline.

The respondents successfully moved to set aside the noting in default, and the motion judge ordered the applicants to amend their statement of claim within seven weeks.

The applicants failed to comply with this order.

The respondents subsequently moved to dismiss the claim for breach of the order, and the applicants did not attend the hearing.

The motion judge dismissed the claim with prejudice and ordered costs of $83,937.82.

The applicants later sought an extension of time to appeal, which was dismissed by the chambers judge.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal, finding no legal error and concluding that the applicants had deliberately breached court orders and lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time period.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order denying him leave to bring a motion for recalculation of section 7 expenses for his son for the years 2014 to 2017.

The appellant was subject to a prior order prohibiting him from commencing or continuing litigation without leave if in arrears of child support, access cancellation costs, or court-ordered costs.

The motion judge imposed additional conditions before the appellant could bring further proceedings, including payment of a $5,000 costs award, compliance with an insurance order, and reduction of child support arrears to less than $2,000.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge's order reasonable and consistent with the prior order.

This is a costs endorsement following the release of reasons in an appeal.

The respondents advised that the court had misapprehended the appellants' oral costs submissions regarding quantum.

The parties were permitted to provide further written submissions on the costs issue.

The court affirmed its costs order for the appeal but altered the costs of the motion below, reducing the amounts payable by Bank of Montreal and Toronto Dominion Bank.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment that granted far-reaching relief to the respondent regarding amounts allegedly owing on a 1994 second mortgage and a 1997 judgment on the covenant.

The Court of Appeal found that the relief granted by the motion judge could not stand.

The court determined that the amounts were duplicated in the judgment, the underlying second mortgage was extinguished by power of sale proceedings, and the debt was extinguished by the bankruptcies of the deceased and one of the defendants.

The court also rejected the finding of fraudulent conveyance and found the claim regarding farm equipment proceeds to be statute-barred.

The only claim that survived was for child support arrears and unpaid costs awards relating to child support.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision granting an order for security.

The appellant argued that damages would be an adequate remedy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the respondent had bargained for security, which differs fundamentally from damages.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

An appeal from a Superior Court order striking out a notice of objection to the passing of accounts in the estate of Lidia Iaboni.

The appellant, Carlo Iaboni, objected to the respondents' administration of his parents' estates on grounds of alleged misappropriation of funds.

The motions judge struck the notice of objection on three bases: lack of merit, abuse of process (attempting to relitigate a dismissed action), and being time-barred under the Limitations Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error by the motions judge and noting that the appellant's factual allegations were not substantiated.

The appellant appealed a Rule 2.1 order dismissing his claim as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The claim arose from an incident at the respondent's café where the respondent allegedly refused to provide ice in a drink for the appellant's disabled friend.

The appellant sought damages for isolation and negative emotional impact allegedly resulting from this incident and subsequent events.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the claim had no hope of success and that Rule 2.1 was properly invoked.

The appellant also sought to note the respondent in default for failing to file a proper statement of defence, but this request was dismissed as moot following the action's dismissal.

A self-represented plaintiff sought leave to appeal from a Divisional Court order quashing her appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The original claim against the defendants sought damages totaling $350,000 but failed to articulate any recognizable cause of action.

The Superior Court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Divisional Court quashed the subsequent appeal on jurisdictional grounds due to the monetary amounts involved exceeding its jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and imposed restrictions on future motions by the plaintiff without prior written leave from a panel.

An appeal from a trial judgment concerning fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit.

The respondents invested over $1 million in a company controlled by the appellant Gardiner, who misrepresented that the company owned and controlled valuable intellectual property (patents, trademarks) when in fact Gardiner personally maintained control.

The trial judge found Gardiner liable for deceit and awarded damages of $2.2 million.

On appeal, the court upheld the finding of deceit against Gardiner but reversed the finding against Armstrong (his wife), reduced the damages award to $1.25 million plus prejudgment interest, and remitted the matter for an accounting of profits earned during the respondents' operation of the business.

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 7, 2016.

The appeal was abandoned by the appellants.

Costs of the appeal were fixed in the amount of $4,250.00 all inclusive against the Gottardos and Kleinridge.

An employee of the Ontario Psychological Association appealed a motion judge's decision striking out paragraphs of her counterclaim that sought contribution and indemnity against six named defendants who were officers and/or directors of the Association.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the six individuals owed no duty of care to the employee.

The court rejected the appellant's arguments that the individuals failed to supervise her properly and that they owed a duty to the Association that, if breached, would result in liability for the appellant's conversion of the Association's money.

Leave to amend was denied.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment enforcing a settlement agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that there was no genuine issue for trial regarding whether an unconditional settlement offer was made on July 8, 2008, and accepted the following day.

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

The appellant's action was dismissed by the motion judge for failure to post security for costs in accordance with a Master's order.

The appellant appealed the dismissal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant had not appealed the Master's order, had not complied with it, and had adduced no evidence of his alleged impecuniosity.