Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ONCA

The moving party, who was previously declared a vexatious litigant and prohibited from filing further materials without leave, sought leave to file a notice of appeal from an order dismissing her action for delay.

The underlying action involved allegations of improper disclosure of confidential youth records by the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found that the proposed notice of appeal contained the same fatal flaws as her previous pleadings and failed to raise tenable grounds.

The court also declined to grant leave to amend the notice of appeal, finding that the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, and that the respondent would suffer prejudice.

The motion for leave to file a notice of appeal was dismissed.

Following a successful appeal by the appellant, the parties were unable to agree on the costs of the underlying summary judgment motion.

The respondent argued that costs should be reserved to the trial judge and that the amount claimed was excessive.

The Court of Appeal followed its general practice of deciding costs immediately and awarded the appellant its requested partial indemnity costs of $47,660, finding the amount reasonable given the complexity and importance of the motion.

The court declined to interfere with a separate costs order regarding a co-defendant, as it had not been raised on appeal.

The appellants, an engineering firm and its principal, appealed a trial judgment apportioning liability for damages between them and their insurers.

The trial judge found the appellants liable in negligence and breach of contract for errors and delays in engineering drawings for a construction project.

The trial judge apportioned 45% of the damages to the appellants and 55% to the insurers, based on an exclusion clause for delay.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that all delays were caused by the appellants' negligence in having to correct errors, which was covered under the policy.

The insurers' cross-appeal regarding the assessment of damages and the date used for foreign currency conversion was dismissed.

The respondents moved to quash the appeal on the basis that the appellant sought to appeal an interlocutory order.

The order below dismissed the appellant's summary judgment motion without making any binding determinations of law under Rule 20.04(4).

The Court of Appeal held that the order was not final and quashed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondents.

The appellants brought two companion libel actions arising from an article in a corporate newsletter that was posted on a website.

The respondents, Shaw Satellite G.P. and Bell Expressvu Limited Partnership, successfully moved for summary judgment, and the actions against them were dismissed.

The appellants appealed, arguing the motions judge erred by failing to draw an adverse inference from refusals given on cross-examinations.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding it was open to the motions judge to decline to draw an adverse inference based on the record.

The appellants appealed a wrongful dismissal damages award, arguing that disability benefits and gross sales from the respondent's new business should be deducted from the award.

The Court of Appeal held that the disability benefits were from privately-placed insurance and should not be deducted.

However, the court found that the respondent's net income of $7,439 from his new business should be deducted from the general damages award.

The appeal was allowed in part to reflect this deduction.

The Registrar and customers of a bankrupt motor vehicle leasing company appealed the dismissal of their motion to vary a vesting order and for leave to sue the trustee in bankruptcy.

The vesting order had transferred the bankrupt's lease portfolio to assignees free and clear of customer claims for security deposits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants' proprietary or economic rights were not directly affected by the order, as the contractual obligation to refund deposits remained with the bankrupt.

The court also held that a motion to vary under s. 187(5) of the BIA or Rule 37.14 cannot be used to substantively change an order or as a substitute for an appeal.

The respondent applied to enforce an arbitrator's award, which the appellant did not oppose.

Instead, the appellant brought a counter-application seeking to remit the matter to the arbitrator to deal with alleged contempt of a confidentiality order and for mandatory injunctive relief.

The application judge allowed the application and dismissed the counter-application.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's exercise of discretion and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Following a successful appeal, the appellant sought clarification on whether the $85,000 costs award included the costs of the respondents' motions for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that these costs were inadvertently omitted and fixed them at $22,000 and $12,000 respectively.

The court declined to determine the scale of costs for the underlying summary judgment motions, leaving that issue to the motion judge.

The respondent was accidentally shot and injured by a youth who subsequently pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

The respondent obtained a civil judgment against the youth and then sought to recover from the homeowner insurance policies of the youth's mother and his aunt and uncle.

The motion judge found the youth was covered under the aunt and uncle's policy and that the 'criminal act' exclusion did not apply because there was no intent to injure.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the 'criminal act' exclusion is unambiguous and applies to any breach of the Criminal Code, regardless of whether the insured intended to cause injury.

The appellant appealed an order denying his application to amend his counterclaim to add a claim for specific performance.

The motion judge had refused the amendment without explanation, stating the claim was untenable, and failed to reference Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court of Appeal found that the respondents' arguments regarding prejudice and election of remedies were matters for trial, not grounds to deny the amendment.

The appeal was allowed, and leave to amend was granted.

Following an appeal, the court issued a costs endorsement.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondents their costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict finding no liability on the part of the respondents for personal injuries sustained when the appellant fell down stairs at a house under construction.

The appellants argued that the trial judge interfered excessively during the appellant's testimony, compromising trial fairness.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the trial judge's extensive and leading questions on core issues of liability and credibility crossed the line into participation in the litigation.

The appeal was allowed, the trial judgment set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it had constructively dismissed the respondent employee and awarding damages including amounts for broker warrants and interest on capital.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of constructive dismissal, agreeing that the employer's demand that the employee share his role as head of the corporate finance department constituted a fundamental change to his employment contract.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the damages awarded for broker warrants because they had no value on the termination date, and setting aside the award of interest on the employee's capital because the shareholder agreement expressly precluded it.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action for specific performance of an alleged oral agreement to purchase land.

The motion judge found no genuine issue for trial because essential terms, specifically the assumption of obligations under a Cost Sharing Agreement, were not agreed upon, and there was no written memorandum to satisfy the Statute of Frauds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the appellant's self-serving affidavit evidence, which contradicted its own draft agreement, was insufficient to create a triable issue.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its third party action against a guarantor.

The trial judge found that the guarantee relied upon by the Registrar's Advisory Committee to approve a builder's registration application was forged, and therefore invalid and unenforceable against the respondent.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her motion by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no error by the motion judge, noting that the evidence filed in support of the motion did not warrant the order sought.

The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, as the respondent filed no factum.

The appellant, a defendant in a libel action and publisher of a newspaper, published an article about a mandatory mediation session that failed to reach a settlement.

He later published another article about his experience being examined for discovery.

The plaintiff successfully moved to have the appellant found in contempt of court for breaching the confidentiality of the mediation process.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that neither Rule 24.1.14 nor the mediation confidentiality agreement constituted a court order enforceable by contempt under Rule 60.

Furthermore, the publications did not constitute contempt under the court's inherent jurisdiction as they did not pose a serious risk to the administration of justice.

The court also confirmed that the deemed undertaking rule (Rule 30.1) restricts the discovering party, not the discovered party, and thus was not breached by the appellant.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the trial judge dismissing the action.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's conclusion based on the record and dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $12,500.

The appellant suffered significant losses in his commodities trading account and successfully sued his brokerage firm for negligent supervision.

The trial judge awarded damages but deducted profits the appellant had made in previous years.

The appellant appealed the quantum of damages and the dismissal of his breach of fiduciary duty claim.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that no fiduciary duty existed, as the appellant was an experienced trader who directed his own account.

However, the Court allowed the appeal on damages, holding that the trial judge erred in deducting past profits, as each trade was a separate transaction and the earlier profitable trades did not constitute an actionable tort.

Damages were increased to $405,741.