Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ONCA

The appellant appealed a Rule 2.01 order dismissing his action concerning the respondent's mortgage.

The court held the action raised no valid issue and found the motion judge's reasons were thorough.

No error warranting appellate intervention was established.

The appeal was dismissed, with costs fixed to the respondent.

The appeal arose from a dispute over whether a substantial contribution to a home purchase created a beneficial ownership interest under resulting trust principles.

The majority held the trial judge made a legal error by disregarding key third-party evidence probative of the transferor’s objective intention and allowed the appeal.

The court declared the appellants entitled to a 50% beneficial interest in the property, set aside the judgment and costs below, and remitted related sale and accounting remedies for case management.

A dissent would have dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible legal or factual error and concluding the transfer was supported by consideration.

The appellant, mother of a man who killed his father, appealed a motion judge's order striking her negligence claim against two psychiatrists who treated her son.

The motion judge had struck the claim alleging negligence in treatment, finding no established duty of care and that imposing such a duty would create an impossible conflict with the duty owed to the patient.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the duty of care was not within an established category, the conflict analysis was speculative and should be determined on a proper evidentiary record rather than at the pleadings stage.

The court distinguished the case from precedents involving child protection and medical treatment of pregnant women, emphasizing that the patient and his parents shared a common interest in appropriate treatment.

This appeal arose from the dismissal of a class proceeding claiming damages against the Crown for negligence related to the presence of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in Canada between 2003 and 2008.

The trial judge dismissed the claim, finding it barred by section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, and also that no duty of care was owed and no negligence occurred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, focusing solely on the application of section 9.

It found that various government programs providing financial assistance to cattle farmers in response to the BSE outbreak constituted "compensation" under section 9, thereby barring the negligence claim as it sought double recovery for the same factual basis of loss.

The appellant, Nathalie Xian Yi Yan, appealed an order striking her statement of claim without leave to amend, which had been granted by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the motion judge's decision.

The Court found no reviewable error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant's claims for constructive discrimination, harassment, professional negligence, and defamation failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The Court also upheld the denial of leave to amend, noting that the appellant had already had an opportunity to amend her pleadings, which resulted in unfocused allegations without evidence.

Costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellants, proposed representative plaintiffs in a securities class action, appealed a motion judge's order that granted leave for one misrepresentation claim but denied leave for others under the Ontario Securities Act.

The primary issues on appeal concerned the motion judge's approach to determining "public correction" of alleged misrepresentations, particularly by assuming falsity and applying a narrow textual analysis without considering market context.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in principle by not engaging in a reasoned consideration of evidence regarding how alleged public corrections would be understood in the secondary market.

The Court remitted the issues of leave for capital expense/scheduling and accounting/financial reporting misrepresentations back to the lower court for redetermination, while upholding the denial of leave for certain environmental misrepresentations due to chronology issues.

The appellant appealed from a summary judgment order dismissing his action against police services and other defendants.

The action arose from two events: an alleged negligent police investigation into a theft complaint and alleged negligent investigations into complaints of child abuse.

The motion judge dismissed the action on two grounds: no duty of care was owed by the police to the appellant, and the action was commenced after the applicable limitation period had expired.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the motion judge correctly concluded there was no duty of care owed to the appellant based on established precedent.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing her negligence action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant was injured by a physiotherapist on August 12, 2011, but did not know his correct name at the time.

The motion judge found that the appellant could have reasonably discovered the physiotherapist's identity through due diligence more than two years before commencing the action.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellant failed to exercise reasonable diligence, particularly after receiving a July 25, 2012 letter from Toronto Poly Clinic indicating that no one from that clinic had treated her on the date in question.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee damages for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge found no cause for termination and awarded damages based on a 19-month notice period, a 2015 bonus, aggravated damages of $25,000, and punitive damages of $100,000.

The appellant challenged each component of the award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors of law or palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The court upheld the trial judge's reasoning on the notice period, bonus entitlement, aggravated damages based on the employer's threatening conduct and bad faith, and punitive damages reflecting the employer's strategic use of a counter-claim to intimidate the employee.

A class action was brought against an auditor for negligently auditing Form 9 reports filed with the Ontario Securities Commission that falsely confirmed a securities dealer's compliance with segregation and minimum capital requirements.

The dealer subsequently failed and investors lost millions.

The motion judge granted summary judgment for the class, finding the auditor owed a duty of care.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that no duty of care existed because there was insufficient proximity between the auditor and the class members.

The class members never saw or knew of the Form 9 reports, made no representations to them, and the interposition of the OSC and the dealer between the auditor and the class rendered the relationship too remote.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their action against their neighbours.

The action sought injunctive relief and damages for invasion of privacy from surveillance cameras, nuisance from speakers and floodlights, trespass from fence construction, and abuse of process from a peace bond application.

The trial judge found no credible evidence of invasion of privacy, no established nuisance, no proven trespass, and no abuse of process.

The appellants alleged the trial judge failed to decide on the merits, provided inadequate reasons, and demonstrated bias.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding the reasons adequate, credibility findings entitled to deference, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

Appeal from a trial judgment awarding damages for birth injuries caused by hospital negligence.

The trial judge found that hospital nurses negligently ruptured the membranes during delivery, causing the plaintiff to suffer hypotonic cerebral palsy with serious and permanent impairments.

The appellants admitted falling below the standard of care but contested causation and damages.

The trial judge awarded $5,568,393 in total damages, including $1,881,846 for future loss of income, and costs of $2,201,259.

The appellants appealed the damages award and costs decision.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.

An employee terminated without just cause as President and General Manager of a division sought damages for wrongful dismissal, including reasonable notice, bonus for the year worked, bonus during the notice period, and benefits during the notice period.

The motion judge awarded 17 months' salary in lieu of notice and the 2016 bonus but denied claims for bonus and benefits during the notice period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the employee's appeal and dismissed the employer's cross-appeal, awarding damages for loss of bonus during the notice period and loss of benefits during the notice period, while upholding the 17-month notice period and 2016 bonus award.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his claim against an individual respondent on a Rule 21 motion.

The appellant was employed by the corporate respondent and alleged his employment was wrongfully terminated as reprisal for a workplace injury claim.

The motion judge struck the claim against the individual respondent, finding insufficient pleading of grounds to establish personal liability outside the scope of corporate duties.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that while tortious conduct allegations may form the basis for personal liability against officers or directors, such claims must be specifically and adequately pleaded with clarity and precision.

Bald or vague assertions of intentional tortious conduct are insufficient to defeat a Rule 21 motion.

The appellants commenced a civil action for misfeasance in public office against a Canada Revenue Agency investigator and the Attorney General of Canada, alleging that the investigator had intentionally sworn a false Information to Obtain search warrants.

The action was discontinued on consent during trial after the appellants failed to establish key elements of their claim.

Approximately one month later, the appellants received Notices of Reassessment from the Minister of National Revenue reversing the original tax assessment.

The appellants moved to set aside the discontinuance based on these reassessments as fresh evidence.

The motion was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the reassessments could not establish the elements of misfeasance in public office and did not meet the high threshold for setting aside a consent discontinuance.

The appellant, a rapper performing under the name Avalanche the Architect, appealed the dismissal of his libel action against a newspaper and its reporter.

The action was struck as statute-barred under the Libel and Slander Act.

The core issue was whether the Act's notice and limitation periods apply to online newspaper articles.

The court held that the Act applies to online versions of newspapers, that the limitation period begins when the libel comes to the plaintiff's knowledge, and that the plaintiff's initial complaint did not constitute proper notice under the Act as it merely complained of factual errors without asserting libel.

The appeal was dismissed.

The estate of a deceased lawyer appealed a trial judge's damages assessment in an undefended trial arising from breaches of fiduciary duty by former employees.

The defendants had wrongfully removed and transferred 120 client files to a competing law firm.

The trial judge awarded $344,513.87 in general damages plus $145,662.19 in prejudgment interest but declined to award punitive damages.

The appellate court found three errors: (1) improper double-counting of overhead expenses in calculating general damages; (2) failure to award punitive damages despite egregious misconduct; and (3) undercompensation of special damages for disbursements.

The appeal was allowed in part, increasing the total award to $627,678.09 plus prejudgment interest.

The respondent stored food processing equipment owned by the appellant and claimed a storage lien under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.

The respondent retained the equipment in breach of his obligation to sell it after receiving a letter from the appellant dated May 30, 2012.

The trial judge ordered the respondent to pay damages of $129,500 USD but reduced this by crediting $27,900 for storage fees at $900 per month for 31 months.

On appeal, the appellant challenged whether credit should have been given and the amount thereof.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's decision to grant the credit and the calculation of the storage fees.

This appeal concerns whether a proposed securities class action asserting a statutory cause of action for misrepresentation under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act was time-barred by the three-year limitation period in section 138.14.

The appellant commenced a class action in May 2009 but did not bring a motion for leave to proceed with the statutory claim within the limitation period.

The motion judge refused to grant leave nunc pro tunc (retroactively), finding that the appellant failed to meet the test established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in principle in the exercise of discretion to deny nunc pro tunc relief.

The appellant appealed from orders of the Superior Court striking her claims against Crown Defendants and dismissing them without leave to amend, and striking her claims against Ms. Santone with leave to amend to pursue only a breach of privacy claim.

The appellant's pleading alleged damages of $8.4 million arising from treatment by various state officials spanning from 1970 to 2011, including claims for conspiracy, misfeasance in public office, breach of trust, intentional infliction of mental distress, and various statutory violations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's findings that the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action, lacked material facts to support the allegations, and that the Crown Defendants were protected by statutory and common law immunity.

The court also rejected the appellant's allegation of judicial bias.