Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ONCA

The appellants sought to certify a class proceeding against the provincial government for its response to COVID-19 in long-term care homes, asserting claims in negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of Charter s. 7.

The motion judge certified the negligence claim against the Minister of Long-Term Care (MLTC) but struck the other claims.

This appeal and cross-appeal challenged that decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appellants' appeal (seeking to certify the struck claims) and the respondent's cross-appeal (seeking to decertify the negligence claim against the MLTC), thereby upholding the motion judge's original certification decision.

The appellant, a Markham city councillor, appealed the dismissal of her anti-SLAPP motion (pursuant to s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act) against an action brought by a developer.

The developer's action alleged defamation and other torts arising from the councillor's opposition to a development and her report to the police regarding an incident with the developer.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by adopting an overly narrow interpretation of "expression relating to a matter of public interest" and by conflating the stages of the s. 137.1 test.

The Court clarified that reporting concerns to the police and a city councillor's actions related to their public duties are matters of public interest, warranting a broad interpretation at the initial stage of the anti-SLAPP analysis.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to a different judge to consider the second stage of the s. 137.1 test.

These are supplementary reasons to an appeal previously dismissed, addressing the calculation of losses for investors.

The Court of Appeal accepted the appellants' submissions that interest should be calculated on a simple, annual basis, consistent with the "Fixed Interest Rate" clause in the Loan Participation Agreements.

Consequently, the amounts awarded to the respondents in the original judgment were varied to reflect this simple interest calculation.

The appellant appealed a lower court decision that struck her claim, which alleged defamation, constructive discrimination, and harassment, without leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no error in the conclusion that the claim failed to provide adequate notice, clearly identify causes of action, or set out material facts.

The Court also deferred to the motion judge's refusal to grant leave to amend and the costs award.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Jayco, Inc. appealed the dismissal of its action against the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.

Jayco sought recovery of legal costs and interest incurred while successfully contesting a GST/HST assessment.

The claims were based on theories of common law indemnity (as a statutory agent under the Excise Tax Act) and private law duty of care (negligence) owed by the CRA during an audit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that no common law right to indemnity exists for statutory agents in this context, nor does the CRA owe a private law duty of care to taxpayers during administrative audits, distinguishing such audits from criminal investigations.

The appellant landlord and respondent tenants entered into a residential occupancy agreement and an option to purchase agreement.

The respondent attempted to exercise the option to purchase, but the notice was late and did not include the required deposit.

The parties subsequently entered into a new agreement of purchase and sale at a higher price, which the respondent failed to close.

The application judge found the respondent had substantially complied with the option agreement and dismissed the landlord's application.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the option agreement required strict compliance due to 'time is of the essence' and non-waiver clauses.

The Court ordered the forfeiture of the majority of the deposit but declined to issue a writ of possession, finding that the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the residential tenancy.

The appellant appealed a default judgment obtained by the respondents in a real estate dispute.

The respondents, as purchasers, alleged that the appellant, as vendor, made negligent misrepresentations regarding property taxes in MLS listings for two properties.

The motion judge declined to set aside the default judgment.

On appeal, the appellant argued the judgment was irregularly obtained.

The Court of Appeal upheld the default judgment, finding that the statement of claim provided a sufficient basis for the judgment as it included allegations of negligent misrepresentation and a plea that the respondents would not have entered into the transactions but for the misrepresentations.

The appellant appealed from the dismissal of his application for damages arising from his exclusion from WeChat groups related to his occupation as a real estate agent.

He also sought a declaration that the WeChat groups belonged to the respondent Homelife.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that an application was not the appropriate proceeding for advancing a damages claim of this type, and that there was no proper evidentiary foundation for either an intentional interference with economic relations claim, a civil conspiracy claim, or the declaration sought.

A landlord leased commercial property to a tenant who operated a contracting business.

The tenant modified the property by dumping landfill in a regulated flood plain without proper authorization, leading to environmental remediation orders.

The landlord and tenant had an oral agreement whereby the tenant would pay rezoning costs and complete required site plan modifications.

When the tenant failed to complete remediation work and the relationship broke down, the landlord terminated the lease and seized the tenant's commercial equipment on the property.

The landlord sued for unpaid rent and property damage; the tenant counterclaimed for conversion of the seized chattels and lost business income.

The trial judge awarded damages to both parties and set them off.

Both parties appealed on liability and damages.

The appellant appealed a partial summary judgment granted by the motion judge in a rear-end motor vehicle collision case that occurred on an icy road during freezing rain.

The appellant argued that the motion judge applied the wrong test and failed to address the alleged contributory negligence of the respondent, contending that the respondent should not have stopped on the highway.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error and confirming that the motion judge correctly applied the summary judgment test.

The court upheld the finding that the respondent did not act negligently in stopping her vehicle given the road conditions and visibility issues.

A lawyer appealed a trial judgment awarding damages for malicious prosecution and breach of contract against her.

The trial judge found that the lawyer had initiated criminal proceedings against an unlicensed paralegal by making misleading complaints to police regarding missing client files.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in concluding the lawyer initiated the prosecution, as the police exercised independent discretion in their investigation.

The court also found errors in the trial judge's application of the rule in Browne v. Dunn and in taking judicial notice regarding mitigation of damages.

Appeal from a trial judgment finding that a nurse and hospital were liable for negligence in the care of a newborn who developed kernicterus due to untreated hyperbilirubinemia.

The trial judge found the nurse breached the standard of care by failing to report jaundice to the resident physician and that but for this negligence, phototherapy would have been commenced earlier, preventing the development of kernicterus.

The appellants challenged the causation findings.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding that the trial judge properly inferred causation based on expert evidence and the factual progression of the infant's condition, and that the appellants could not escape liability by pointing to hypothetical negligence of other physicians.

The appellants appealed from a summary judgment dismissing their counterclaim for professional negligence against their former solicitors.

The law firm had been retained for nearly five years to represent the appellants in protracted litigation and subsequently sued for unpaid fees.

The appellants counterclaimed for damages, alleging the firm failed to provide a meaningful assessment of potential damages that would have enabled an earlier settlement.

The motion judge granted summary judgment, finding no causal link between the firm's failure to obtain a formal damages assessment and the continuation of the litigation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law and that genuine issues requiring trial existed.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissal of their negligence claim against the City of Toronto arising from a fall on a sidewalk.

The appellant sustained injuries when her foot landed on a missing paving stone on a narrow strip adjacent to the concrete sidewalk.

The motion judge found that the City had availed itself of the statutory defences under section 42(3) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, having undertaken reasonable steps to prevent the state of non-repair and having no knowledge of the defect.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal and denied the motion for leave to appeal the costs award.

The appellant appealed from a Superior Court order dismissing his negligence action against his former lawyers and ordering him to pay costs.

The action arose from the lawyers' representation in a companion motor vehicle accident claim.

The Superior Court dismissed the action because the appellant twice failed to attend a court-ordered defence medical examination by a neurologist, and made clear his intention never to comply with such an order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the motion judge had no alternative but to dismiss the claim given the appellant's refusal to comply with the court order.

This appeal concerns a class action by General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL) dealers against the law firm Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP for breach of fiduciary and contractual duties.

During the 2009 financial crisis, Cassels represented three potentially conflicting clients: the Saturn Dealers, Industry Canada (regarding GMCL bailout financing), and GMCL dealers generally regarding a potential restructuring or insolvency.

The trial judge found that Cassels breached its duties by failing to disclose the conflict of interest with Industry Canada to the dealers and by failing to provide proper advice regarding Wind-Down Agreements (WDAs) offered by GMCL.

The dealers lost the opportunity to negotiate collectively for better compensation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the liability findings but reduced the damages award from $45 million to approximately $41 million (subject to further calculation regarding class composition).

An employee appealed the dismissal of her action against her former employer for constructive dismissal, intentional infliction of mental distress, and inducing breach of contract.

The employee had resigned after her mentor and superior departed the company, citing increased workload and a poisoned work environment.

The trial judge found no causal link between the alleged breaches and the resignation, and that the employee had acquiesced in the changed working conditions over an extended period.

The trial judge also rejected claims of intentional infliction of mental distress arising from an investigation into alleged software sabotage, finding the investigation was conducted in good faith.

The inducing breach of contract claim failed due to lack of evidence of a valid contract and intent to breach.

The appeal was dismissed.

In this addendum to a previous judgment, the Court of Appeal amended its declaration regarding the duty to defend under commercial general liability policies.

The court removed Royal & Sunalliance Insurance Company of Canada from the declaration, as it had settled prior to the appeal.

The court also removed a stipulation regarding a Professional Services Exclusion, which the insurers had withdrawn reliance upon.

Finally, based on a prior agreement between the parties, the court vacated its previous costs award and directed submissions for full indemnity costs.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment decision, arguing that ambiguities in the written agreement required viva voce evidence and credibility findings at trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's interpretation of the contract and security terms, which rejected the appellants' claim that they never intended to guarantee the principal amount.

The court found no genuine issue for trial requiring further evidence.

The appellant operated a restaurant in a mall and sued the landlord and property manager for negligence and breach of contract, alleging construction activities caused its business to fail.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding the appellant ought to have discovered its claim more than two years before commencing the action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that whether the claim was discovered when the business was struggling or when it finally closed was a genuine issue requiring a trial.