Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ONCA

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their defamation claims for failure to comply with the notice provision in s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act.

The appellants had sent a notice to the respondent newspaper regarding articles that alleged the appellants fabricated criminal charges.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in law by failing to consider the notice in the context of all surrounding circumstances.

The Court held that the notice sufficiently conveyed the essence of the matter complained of, allowing the respondents to take appropriate steps to mitigate damages.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment ordering him to pay approximately $500,000 and deliver possession of his property to the respondent bank.

The bank had demanded payment on a secured line of credit after the Canada Revenue Agency registered a lien against the property without the bank's consent, which violated the loan contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's allegations of identity fraud did not alter the fact that the contract was breached by the CRA lien.

The court also upheld the dismissal of the appellant's counterclaim and the award of substantial indemnity costs.

The moving party brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal from a Superior Court order.

The Superior Court judge had dismissed the appellant's appeal of a master's order setting aside a noting in default.

The appellant argued the judge erred in referring the matter to a master and that the master's order was final.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, finding the referral was permitted under Rule 37.15(1.1) and the order remained interlocutory.

The motion was granted and the appeal was quashed.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against mutual fund managers for permitting market timing, which allegedly caused losses to long-term investors.

The defendants had previously entered into settlement agreements with the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) regarding the same conduct.

The motion judge dismissed the certification motion, finding the OSC proceedings were the preferable procedure.

The Divisional Court allowed the plaintiffs' appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants' appeal, holding that the OSC proceedings were regulatory and lacked participatory rights for investors, and therefore did not fulfill the access to justice goals of the Class Proceedings Act.

The class action was deemed the preferable procedure.

The appellants appealed an order finding that a letter sent by the respondent prior to litigation was protected by absolute privilege.

The appellants argued that the prospect of litigation was too remote at the time the letter was sent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's finding that the letter was a preparatory step taken with a view to judicial proceedings and therefore fell within the confines of absolute privilege.

The appellant appealed an order regarding the interpretation of a settlement agreement term stating a mortgage 'will be held in escrow'.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the parties intended the mortgage would not be effective and would not create an interest in land unless and until there was a default.

As no default occurred, the bank had nothing to assign to the appellant.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant insurance company appealed an order regarding the interpretation of an insurance policy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that clause 14 of the policy was at best ambiguous.

Applying the contra proferentem rule, the court interpreted the clause in favour of the respondent insured and awarded costs of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of Justice Ground, and remitted the matter to the Superior Court of Justice.

The decision was based on the reasons provided in the companion endorsement in Court File C44279.

Costs were fixed at $4,000 inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements.

The appellant corporation issued share certificates as part of a stock roll program, representing them as fully paid when they were not.

A third party pledged one of these certificates to the respondent bank as collateral for a loan.

When the borrower defaulted, the bank sought to realize on the shares, but the appellant refused to acknowledge the bank as the valid owner.

The trial judge found the bank was a good faith purchaser and granted an oppression remedy.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the bank was a good faith purchaser, the appellant was estopped from denying the validity of the certificate, and the restriction on transfer did not prevent the transfer to the bank.

The court also dismissed the third-party claim against a credit union for vicarious liability.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued an endorsement on costs following an appeal.

The respondent was awarded partial indemnity costs fixed at $50,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant, Congrès Ibéroaméricain Du Canada Inc., appealed an order denying it leave to intervene in an application challenging the constitutionality of the Radiocommunication Act under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the appellant lacked a distinct perspective, did not have a real and substantial interest, lacked special expertise, and that its intervention would unduly delay and prejudice the proceedings.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a judgment dismissing his personal injury action following a jury verdict.

The jury found that the motor vehicle accident did not cause or materially contribute to any of the appellant's injuries, despite assessing damages at $25,000 for pain and suffering.

The appellant argued the verdict was perverse and that the trial judge erred in evidentiary rulings regarding expert witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury's verdict was reasonable given the central issue of the appellant's credibility and the defendants' position at trial.

The court also found no reversible error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings.

The appellant challenged a summary judgment order that had dismissed most of his claims arising from an alleged agreement concerning the purchase, development, and later sale of a Toronto property.

The Court of Appeal held that the dispute turned on conflicting evidence and the central question of good faith, which required findings of fact, weighing of evidence, and implicit credibility determinations.

Those issues could not properly be resolved on a summary judgment motion.

The appeal was allowed, the cross-appeal dismissed, and the summary judgment motion dismissed.

A motion was brought to determine the proper appellate jurisdiction for appeals and cross-appeals arising from judgments on construction lien and breach of trust claims under the Construction Lien Act.

The Court of Appeal held that section 71(1) of the Act applies to both lien claims and trust claims, meaning all such appeals lie to the Divisional Court.

The motion was granted and the appeals were transferred to the Divisional Court.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action under Rule 21.

The motions judge had dismissed the action, framed in negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, on the basis that it was brought after the expiry of the six-year limitation period and did not properly plead fiduciary duty.

The Court of Appeal granted the appellant leave to amend his statement of claim to address discoverability and properly plead breach of fiduciary duty, on the condition that he pay the respondents' costs of $3,500 within 30 days.

This was an appeal, with leave, from a costs order arising out of summary judgment and related motions in ongoing litigation involving a counterclaim.

The court declined to interfere with the motions judge’s award of solicitor-and-client costs and with the allocation of costs, finding those determinations were within the judge’s discretion and supported by the record.

However, the court varied the order respecting the costs of the action by holding that two respondents whose litigation with the appellant remained ongoing should not receive those costs immediately, while another respondent was entitled to its costs of the action subject to careful assessment to avoid double-counting.

The court also held that costs payable to the appellant should be payable now on a party-and-party basis rather than in the cause.

Commercial appeal arising from a terminated joint venture funding agreement for the acquisition of Greek mines.

The Court of Appeal held that no fiduciary duty survived termination of the parties' arm's-length commercial agreement, but upheld findings that the respondent group provided confidential information, that the appellant misused that information in acquiring the property, and that the confidentiality agreement and common law duty of confidence were enforceable.

The court refused to admit fresh evidence under the Palmer test and dismissed a non-party motion to set aside the judgment based on alleged ownership of the information.

The remedy awarding a 12 per cent carried interest plus a further 12 per cent participating interest was upheld, while both the main appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

Appeal concerning priority between prior perfected PPSA security interests and a later court-ordered charge granted to a mortgagee in possession for occupancy costs incurred while warehousing the bankrupts' personal property.

The court held that the priority issue was not governed by either the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act or the Personal Property Security Act, and instead had to be resolved under common law and equitable principles.

The majority concluded that, although the appellants' security interests were first in time, their continuing and concerted misconduct in delaying payment of occupancy costs justified postponing their priority in favour of the mortgagee's charge.

The appeals were dismissed and the mortgagee's priority was upheld.

In this medical malpractice appeal, the defendants challenged findings that negligent immobilization of a hand fracture caused permanent disability and substantial damages.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge applied the correct specialist standard of care, properly inferred causation under the flexible approach in medical negligence cases, and was not required to apportion between tortious and non-tortious causes once the negligent treatment materially contributed to the entire injury.

The contributory negligence argument based on discontinuing physiotherapy failed because the evidence supported that the treatment was inappropriate and the patient sought alternative care.

The appeal succeeded only on quantum, with the award for past loss of income set aside for lack of evidentiary foundation.

The appellant brokerage appealed the dismissal of its commission claim arising from an authority to sell.

The court held that the authority did not apply to a sale to a purchaser who had already been dealing with the respondents before the authority was signed, and that merely showing financial statements did not amount to showing the property in the circumstances.

The court also upheld the trial judge’s conclusion that, although the broker provided some assistance, it was not the effective cause of the sale.

The appeal was dismissed with costs and the money paid into court was ordered paid out to two of the respondents.