Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ONCA

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing his defamation action against his first cousins.

The appellant alleged that the respondents made defamatory statements accusing him of sexual assault: one through an alleged text message sent in 2019 and another through an alleged repetition of that message in 2021.

The motion judge found no admissible evidence of the alleged text message and rejected the appellant's evidence regarding its repetition based on credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no error in the motion judge's credibility determinations and noting that the appellant had narrowed his claims at the motion stage, thereby distinguishing the issues from a separate related action.

The appellants appealed an application judge's decision resolving multiple issues regarding an estate and family marina business, including the repayment of a loan and the payment of occupation rent.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding errors in the application judge's findings of fact or her award of costs.

The appeal was dismissed, save for a minor variation to the formal judgment to clarify that only the estate, not the appellant personally, was liable for the loan repayment.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action.

The trial judge found that the respondent breached the standard of care by discharging the appellant without reviewing an MRA, but concluded that this negligence did not cause the appellant's second, severe stroke.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in the admission of expert evidence and agreeing that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case on causation, as the evidence did not show that treatment with Heparin would have been more effective than Aspirin in preventing the second stroke.

The moving party, a self-represented appellant, sought permission to obtain a transcription of a digital recording of a security for costs hearing to support his review motion.

The responding parties objected to the delay a transcription would cause but agreed to the provision of the digital recording if the review motion was expedited.

The motion judge ordered that the parties be provided with a copy of the digital recording at no cost, subject to an undertaking, and directed an expedited written hearing for the review motion.

On appeal from a trial judgment in a personal injury case arising from a motorcycle accident, the appellants challenged the trial judge's decisions regarding collateral benefits deductions under the Insurance Act.

Specifically, they contested the trial judge's refusal to deduct an overpayment of income replacement benefits and short-term disability benefits from the jury's award.

The appellants argued that if successful on either issue, the respondent's judgment would fall below their Rule 49 settlement offer, warranting a costs adjustment.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decisions on both issues and dismissed the appeal.

Bondfield Construction Company Limited appealed the dismissal of its defamation action against The Globe and Mail Inc. under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (anti-SLAPP provision).

The motion judge had dismissed the action, finding that Bondfield failed to meet the requirement to show that the defendants had "no valid defence whatsoever." The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge had misinterpreted the statutory threshold.

The correct test requires the plaintiff to show only that a reasonable trier could conclude that the defendant did not have a valid defence, not that the defendant has no defence whatsoever.

The court found that Bondfield met this lower threshold regarding the defences of fair comment and responsible communication.

On the public interest balancing analysis, the court found that the case had none of the hallmarks of a classic SLAPP suit and should proceed to trial on its merits.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order enforcing the terms of a settlement agreement regarding the respondent's claim for amounts owed upon termination of employment.

The appellants argued the settlement should not be enforced due to the respondent's alleged post-termination breach of a non-compete clause.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the alleged breach was not part of the settlement and that a boilerplate preamble could not reasonably be interpreted to include it.

The appellants appealed a Superior Court decision granting the respondent College declaratory and injunctive relief for unauthorized practice and unauthorized use of protected titles.

The appellants argued that the language proficiency requirement in the Registration Regulation was discriminatory.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's finding that the appellants were barred from advancing the constitutional argument due to issue estoppel and abuse of process, as the same issue had been previously decided against them by the Divisional Court.

The Bank appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for knowing assistance in a breach of trust after it allowed a payroll processing company continued access to electronic banking facilities despite knowing of a deficit in a trust account.

The plaintiffs cross-appealed the dismissal of their claim for knowing receipt of trust funds regarding a transfer that reduced an overdraft.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the knowledge requirement for knowing assistance and made no palpable and overriding error in concluding the Bank had no obligation to inquire into the overdrafts.

The appellant challenged a motion judge’s refusal to set aside a noting in default, arguing that the finding that it was merely delaying trial was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal held that the impugned finding was justified on the record and accepted the motion judge’s view that the pleading complaints amounted to clutching at trivialities.

Because that finding was central to the refusal to set aside the default, appellate intervention was unwarranted.

The appeal was dismissed with partial indemnity costs fixed at $8,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their application to set aside the dismissal of their action.

The action had been dismissed in May 2012, but the appellants subsequently brought two motions for default judgment without disclosing the dismissal or complying with the Registrar's directions.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was brought over a year later.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's conclusion that the appellants failed to move promptly and lacked a valid explanation for the delay.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action for negligence and malicious prosecution against a security guard and other parties.

The action arose after the appellant was arrested based on the security guard's identification, though charges were later withdrawn.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant failed to plead necessary facts or establish a causal connection between the security guard's actions and the arrest, which was an independent police decision.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant bank appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent damages for constructive dismissal.

The respondent, a senior manager, was relieved of his supervisory duties following employee complaints and offered reassignment options, which he declined.

The trial judge found he was constructively dismissed and had no duty to mitigate by accepting the new positions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's application of the Evans test, as returning to the bank would have subjected the respondent to an atmosphere of embarrassment or humiliation.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion to stay an order adding two schools to Schedule F of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement pending appeal.

The moving party argued the order triggered an automatic stay under Rule 63.01(1) or warranted a discretionary stay under Rule 63.02(1).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding the order did not create a fixed debt obligation and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents, as a stay would prejudice former students' ability to apply for compensation.

A cross-motion to determine the effective date of the order found the notice of appeal was delivered out of time, but the court extended the time to appeal and expedited the hearing.

The respondent paid $222,500 to purchase shares but never received them.

The motion judge granted partial summary judgment for $202,500, accounting for a $20,000 counterclaim.

The appellants appealed, arguing an alleged oral agreement regarding profit sharing created a genuine issue for trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial as the individual appellant admitted to personally guaranteeing the subscription price and failing to pay.

Following the release of the main appellate decisions, the successful parties made costs submissions.

Counsel subsequently agreed to the quantum of costs for all four appeals.

The Court of Appeal ordered costs on a partial indemnity scale to TeleZone Inc., G-Civil Inc., Fielding Chemical Technologies Inc., and Michiel McArthur in the agreed-upon amounts.

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

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the order under appeal was not a final order.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant appealed a judgment enforcing a settlement of his civil action against the respondents, which included a claim for overtime.

The appellant also brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it could not reasonably be expected to have affected the result.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge made no palpable and overriding error in enforcing the settlement or refusing to set it aside.

Following an appeal judgment, the successful appellant sought costs against the respondents.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the costs be recoverable against both respondents jointly and severally, as they shared a community of interest in the appeal and filed a joint factum.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of a medical malpractice action arising from the death of a patient undergoing treatment for tuberculosis.

The appeal focused on recusal, alleged negligence in the physician’s monitoring and follow-up system, and causation.

The court held that, although the trial judge had improperly received information caught by Rule 50.03, the circumstances did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias requiring recusal.

The court further held there was no basis to disturb the findings that the follow-up system did not establish negligence on the physician’s part and that any failure of follow-up did not cause or contribute to the death, because the accepted evidence showed no signs of hepatitis at the critical January assessment.