Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - OCA

The appellants commenced an action in nuisance and negligence against the respondent municipality for property damage allegedly caused by heavy truck traffic vibrations.

The action was commenced after the Ontario Municipal Board declined jurisdiction over the appellants' injurious affection claim.

The motion judge dismissed the civil action as statute-barred under the two-year limitation period.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the application of the two-year limitation period and the finding that it was not legally appropriate to wait for the OMB decision before commencing the civil action.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the municipality engaged in ongoing wrongful conduct causing damage within the two years prior to the statement of claim.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order holding the individual appellant personally liable for amounts owing on invoices for bags supplied by the respondent to his companies.

The appellants argued the motion judge erred by making findings of fact without ordering a mini-trial under Rule 20 on issues of personal liability and payment allocation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the record amply supported the motion judge's conclusions that the individual appellant agreed to be personally liable for past and future corporate debts.

The court also found the motion judge's dismissal of the counterclaim for defective bags was unassailable.

The appellant appealed a jury's damages award and a trial judge's costs order arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the trial judge's interventions during cross-examination rendered the trial unfair and that the jury was misdirected on causation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the damages appeal, finding the interventions did not compromise trial fairness and the causation instructions were adequate.

However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding costs, setting aside a $60,000 penalty imposed on the appellant's insurer under the Insurance Act.

The Court found no evidence that the insurer failed to attempt to settle the claim expeditiously or that its participation in mediation was a sham.

The appellants appealed a mortgage enforcement judgment, arguing that the application judge erred by allowing the respondent bank to proceed by way of application rather than an action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Rule 14.05(3)(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes applications for declarations of an interest in land.

Furthermore, the procedural objection was raised for the first time on appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his application for an injunction to prevent the respondents from keeping a locked gate on a private road, and granting the respondents' cross-application to close the road under the Road Access Act.

The application judge found the appellant had alternate road access via a trail on Crown land using four-wheel-drive vehicles.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge's finding of alternate access was supported by evidence.

The Court further held that once alternate access was established, the appellant had no standing to oppose the road-closing application.

The respondents' cross-appeal regarding a condition in the road-closing order was also dismissed.

The Court of Appeal released a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The court agreed with the appellant that costs should be fixed and ordered the respondent to pay the appellant $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

Costs of the underlying application were reserved to the trial judge.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge's reasons and finding it was an appropriate case for summary judgment.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $8,000.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding a real estate transaction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's decisions to permit an amendment to the claim for GST, to interpret the Agreement of Purchase and Sale as not requiring formal tender since the respondent was ready, willing, and able to close, and to award costs.

The appellant tenant breached a commercial lease by abandoning the premises.

The respondent landlord subsequently leased the property to a new tenant, with a 10-month overlap of the original lease term.

The tenant appealed the trial judge's calculation of damages, arguing the landlord received a benefit from avoiding a lengthy vacancy period.

The landlord cross-appealed regarding the deduction of tax consultant fees and the apportionment of rent-free periods and improvements.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the main appeal, finding the tenant's mitigation argument was not pleaded and relied on speculation.

The cross-appeal was allowed in part, permitting the landlord to deduct the 50% contingency fee paid to a tax consultant to obtain a property tax rebate.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding it breached an exclusive supplier agreement and awarding the respondent nearly $5 million in lost profits.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to imply a term requiring customer consent, finding a breach regarding a specific contract, and excluding certain evidence on damages.

The respondent cross-appealed, seeking an additional $1 million in damages, arguing the trial judge arbitrarily increased the calculation of incremental overhead expenses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the trial judge's factual findings were supported by the evidence and his legal conclusions were correct.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeals, stating they were in entire agreement with the reasons of the lower court judge.

The respondent did not seek costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim for adverse possession over certain property areas, including a buffer zone.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's acceptance of evidence regarding the area south of Tree Line One was fatal to that part of the claim.

Regarding the western buffer zone, the Court held it was open to the trial judge to find that the appellants' use did not exclude the true owner's proprietary use of the land.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The parties agreed on the costs of the appeal and the motion for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal fixed the costs in the amount of $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and GST, to be paid by the appellant to the respondent.

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

The court determined that costs should be awarded against the respondent Sudbury Downs Holding, as it stood in an adversarial relationship to the appellant, unlike the Ontario Racing Commission.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity scale for the application for judicial review, the motion for leave to appeal, and the appeal itself, totaling $42,880 in fees plus disbursements and GST.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing its counterclaim and cross-claim in a patent dispute.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motions judge erred by assessing credibility, weighing evidence, and making findings of fact on disputed issues, which are functions reserved for the trier of fact.

The motions for summary judgment were dismissed and the matter was sent to trial.

The appellants appealed the judgment of the lower court.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal with costs, agreeing with the reasons of the lower court judge.

Counsel were permitted to file written submissions on the amount of costs.

The appellants appealed a judgment dismissing their claim for partition and sale and granting other relief.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the partition and sale claim, finding that the joint venture agreement provided a proper basis for denying this relief.

However, the Court found material facts in dispute regarding mortgage disclosure and directed those issues to proceed to trial.

The appeal was allowed in part.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict apportioning liability for a motor vehicle accident involving a child on a rock slide, and the trial judge's award of a $25,500 costs premium to the plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the jury's finding that the driver was only 10% responsible, noting the high threshold for interfering with a jury's apportionment.

The court also upheld the costs premium but allowed an amendment to reduce the judgment by $10,921.44 based on recent case law.

Dans cet appel en diffamation portant sur un documentaire télévisé, la Cour a statué que l'avis écrit exigé par le par. 5(1) de la Loi sur la diffamation doit, avant l'introduction de l'action, préciser suffisamment les propos diffamatoires reprochés pour permettre au défendeur de corriger, rétracter, justifier ou atténuer.

La lettre initiale de la demanderesse, qui alléguait de façon générale que l'émission était diffamatoire, était trop vague pour satisfaire à cette exigence à l'égard du radiodiffuseur et de la productrice.

Quant aux autres défendeurs, l'avis détaillé leur a été signifié seulement après la délivrance de la déclaration, ce qui constituait également un défaut fatal.

L'appel principal a été accueilli, l'appel incident rejeté, et aucune ordonnance n'a été rendue quant aux frais.

The appellants sought to restore a motion order extending the time for service of a statement of claim issued within the limitation period but not served before the service deadline expired.

The court held that the controlling question was whether the respondent would suffer prejudice caused by the delay, and confirmed that while the onus remained on the plaintiffs, a defendant asserting prejudice had at least an evidentiary obligation to provide some particulars.

The court further held that a defendant could not manufacture prejudice by failing to take reasonable steps earlier to preserve evidence, and that prejudice unrelated to the delayed service was irrelevant.

The appeal was allowed, the Divisional Court order was set aside, and the original extension order was restored.