Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ONCA

The appellant appealed a decision denying him interest on a shareholder's loan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis for interest as there was no agreement between the shareholders, no demand for repayment, no finding of oppression, and no judgment upon which to award prejudgment interest.

The appellant brought a class action alleging that the respondent transmission repair franchisor breached consumer protection legislation by charging an 'Inspection Service' fee, which the appellant characterized as an illegal fee for an estimate when repairs are authorized and carried out.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding the fee was for the labour required to remove and reinstall the transmission, not for an estimate.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing with the motion judge's statutory interpretation and finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The appellant was ordered to undergo a psychiatric assessment under s. 672.11 of the Criminal Code and was held in a detention centre for 15 days before a hospital bed became available.

She brought a proposed class action alleging Charter violations, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence by the Crown for failing to immediately transfer her to a hospital.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the action, finding that the Criminal Code permits detention in a jail pending transfer to a hospital, the detention was lawful, and the Crown owed no fiduciary duty to the appellant that would override its public interest obligations.

The appellants appealed a judgment determining amounts payable to two law firms out of settlement funds held in trust, based on a Settlement Agreement.

The appellants argued the agreement was unfair and unreasonable under the Solicitors Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the agreement regarding the first firm, finding it fair and reasonable, but allowed the appeal regarding the second firm, remitting the issue of fairness and reasonableness of its fees to the Superior Court of Justice because the application judge failed to provide grounds for finding the fees reasonable and did not characterize the nature of the fee arrangement.

The appellant mortgagee appealed an order dismissing its motion to re-open a default judgment for foreclosure to request a reference on the mortgage covenant.

The default judgment had been obtained on consent 2.5 years prior.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master properly exercised his discretion to deny the relief given the unexplained delay, the finality of the judgment, and the prejudice to the mortgagors.

The appellant brought an action against the lawyer who represented his child's mother in a custody dispute, alleging the lawyer committed criminal acts including perjury and fraud.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant commenced an action in negligence against her husband's employer for damages arising from his alleged wrongful dismissal.

The husband was a unionized employee whose grievance had been settled under a collective agreement.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim based on the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrator.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that any claim related to the employment should have been pursued under the collective agreement and the appellant had no independent cause of action.

The appellant appealed an order declaring him a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence of the appellant's persistent and unwarranted pursuit of meritless legal proceedings.

The Court also dismissed an application to adduce fresh evidence and upheld the motion judge's refusal to permit cross-examination on an affidavit, noting the right to cross-examine is not absolute.

The appellant employer sought a stay of execution of a Court of Appeal judgment awarding wrongful dismissal and punitive damages to the respondent employee, pending an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The court granted the stay under s. 65(1)(d) of the Supreme Court Act based on the appellant's undertaking to pay.

However, applying the test for lifting a stay to s. 65(4) of the Act, the court partially lifted the stay to the extent of $60,000 to alleviate the respondent's severe financial hardship pending the appeal.

The appellant Bank appealed an order striking its amended third party claim without leave to amend for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the pleading failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 25.06(8) by not providing particulars of the alleged fraud or misrepresentation.

However, the Court found the motion judge erred by making findings of fact and relying on inadmissible evidence on a Rule 21.01(1)(b) motion.

The appeal was allowed in part to grant the Bank leave to amend its third party claim.

The plaintiff suffered a major depressive disorder and phobia after seeing a dead fly in an unopened bottle of water supplied by the defendant.

The trial judge awarded damages for psychiatric injury, finding the plaintiff's extreme reaction was due to his particular cultural background and sensibilities.

The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant's appeal and dismissed the action.

The Court held that in tort, psychiatric harm must be reasonably foreseeable in a person of normal fortitude and robustness.

The plaintiff's highly unusual reaction did not meet this objective test.

The Court also dismissed the contract claim, finding that psychiatric harm was not in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was formed.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that an oral agreement to settle an action, reached during mandatory mediation, was enforceable.

The appellant argued that because the agreement was not reduced to writing and signed as contemplated by Rule 24.1.15(3), it was unenforceable, and that mediation confidentiality precluded its enforcement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the parties had agreed formal minutes were not required, the appellant had confirmed his agreement, and evidence of what occurred at mediation may be considered when the enforceability of a settlement is in issue.

The appellant passenger was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and was found 35 per cent contributorily negligent by a jury for failing to wear an available shoulder harness, despite wearing a lap belt.

The Court of Appeal held that the jury's assessment was unreasonable, as contributory negligence solely for failing to wear a seatbelt should not exceed 25 per cent.

The court substituted an assessment of 5 per cent contributory negligence, noting the appellant complied with the statutory requirement to wear a lap belt and the shoulder harness was a non-retracting type that was commonly worn improperly.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application and the costs award.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's exercise of discretion.

The Court noted it did not necessarily agree that the discoverability principle applied to the limitation period in question, but did not need to decide the issue.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Minor Oaks Hockey Association Inc., appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court judge's decision and reasons.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's order permitting the respondent to withdraw an admission regarding damages after two and a half days of trial.

The trial judge had ordered a mistrial and awarded the appellant costs thrown away to allow them to consider their position.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's order was a discretionary one that caused no prejudice to the appellant.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their solicitor's negligence claim and awarding substantial indemnity costs to the respondents.

They also alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias against the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the bias and negligence grounds, finding the trial judge's factual findings supported by the evidence.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal costs and reduced the trial costs award to $35,000, while maintaining the substantial indemnity scale due to the nature of the allegations made by the appellants.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed with no costs of the appeal.

Three separate appeals were brought challenging a motions judge's order regarding claims related to defective breast implants.

OHIP appealed the striking of its subrogated claim, which the court dismissed, finding the claim was fully satisfied by the Dow Settlement Agreement.

The Attorney General and Dow appealed the dismissal of their motions to strike the plaintiffs' action for regulatory negligence, arguing the settlement agreements barred the claims and constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, holding that the plaintiffs' several liability claims against the government regulator were different in nature and kind from the settled claims and were not barred by the prior agreements.

The appellants appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of fact were open to him on the evidence and were fatal to the issues raised.

The court also held that the issue of interest was a question of contract and was properly pleaded.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000.

The appellants appealed a judgment declaring that the sale of Hydro One shares by the Crown contravened s. 48(1) of the Electricity Act.

Before the appeal was heard, the government withdrew the public offering and enacted new legislation repealing s. 48(1) and expressly authorizing the sale of the shares.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot, finding that the legal and factual foundation of the dispute had disappeared and that the circumstances did not justify an exception to the general rule against hearing moot appeals.