Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ONCA

Following an appeal in a class proceeding, the parties and the Law Foundation of Ontario made a joint submission regarding costs.

The Court of Appeal ordered the appellants to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal fixed at $30,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellant company entered into an agreement with the respondent mining company to introduce business opportunities in exchange for a commission.

The appellant claimed an $8,080,000 commission after the respondent invested in a third-party company.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the claim, finding that the respondent and the third party had introduced themselves before the appellant's involvement and that the appellant only provided publicly available information.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant sought to certify a class action against the municipality for property damage caused by pinhole leaks in copper plumbing, allegedly resulting from the addition of sodium hydroxide to the municipal water supply.

The motion judge certified the negligence claim but struck the nuisance claim, finding it barred by s. 449 of the Municipal Act, 2001, which precludes nuisance claims related to the escape of water from water works.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the nuisance claim was plainly and obviously barred by the ordinary meaning of the statute.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's argument that a breach of contract claim should have been certified, as it was not argued before the motion judge.

The appellant commercial tenant appealed a trial judgment dismissing its action for breach of lease and granting the respondent landlord's counterclaim for rent arrears and property damage.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by relying on hearsay for repair estimates, excluding surreptitious recordings, and finding the landlord's refusal to consent to a lease assignment was reasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or factual findings regarding the unsuitability of the premises for the proposed assignee's auto body shop.

The appellants, a developer, appealed from a summary judgment that dismissed claims for conspiracy and negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation against appraisers, and ordered a mini-trial on claims of negligence, inducing breach of contract, and intentional interference with economic relations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the conspiracy and misrepresentation claims, finding no reasonable reliance and no evidence of conspiracy.

The court also set aside the mini-trial order and dismissed the remaining claims, finding they had no possibility of success due to lack of reliance, absence of unlawful conduct, and expiration of the limitation period.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order, arguing the motion judge erred by granting it despite a viable set-off defence and inconsistently allowing the counterclaim to proceed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge reasonably exercised his discretion.

The appellants had failed to provide evidence of their damages claim after being given a year to do so, leaving only an unsubstantial punitive damages claim.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order dismissing its claim for breach of a non-competition covenant.

The appellant alleged the respondent, as a director of a holding company, supplied a refrigerated truck to a competitor for free.

The motion judge found evidence that rental payments were being made for the truck, which permitted the rejection of the appellant's claim.

The Court of Appeal found no error and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant's home was damaged during exterior restoration work when the contractor failed to properly seal areas against water.

The appellant's insurer denied coverage based on a 'faulty workmanship' exclusion.

The motion judge granted summary judgment to the insurer, finding the exclusion precluded claims for both direct and resulting damage.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the 'faulty workmanship' exclusion must be interpreted narrowly to exclude only direct damage, preserving coverage for resulting damage under the all-risks policy.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against one defendant arising from alleged negligent golf course design and breach of contract in a golf course development project.

The Court of Appeal held that the claimed loss, being diminution in the value of ten acres within a larger parcel, could only be advanced by the owner of the affected land.

The evidence supported the motion judge’s findings that the limited partnership did not own the land and that one appellant acquired the parcel for fair market value after any diminution had already occurred.

Because any loss had been suffered by prior owners, the appellants had no claim against the respondent.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant sought to set aside an arbitral award regarding a commercial dispute over the sale of carrots.

The application judge dismissed the application because it was brought outside the 30-day time limit under the Arbitration Act, 1991.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the International Commercial Arbitration Act (ICAA), which has a three-month time limit, should apply, or alternatively, that the court should extend the 30-day limit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the Arbitration Act applied because both parties were Ontario businesses and the dispute was domestic.

The Court also held there is no judicial discretion to extend the 30-day time limit under section 47 of the Arbitration Act.

The appellants made a last-minute request to adjourn their appeal in order to retain new counsel.

The Court of Appeal granted the adjournment with considerable reluctance, viewing it as a significant indulgence.

The appeal was rescheduled peremptorily, and the appellants were ordered to pay $1,000 in costs thrown away.

The court also noted that corporate appellants require leave to act in person under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The moving parties brought a motion to quash an appeal from an order that declared and validated service of a fresh statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal held that the order was interlocutory because it did not determine the real matters in dispute or deprive the responding parties of any substantive defence.

The motion was allowed, the appeal was quashed, and the matter was transferred to the Divisional Court where the responding parties could seek leave to appeal.

The appellant sought to stay or dismiss an Ontario contract action on the basis of a prior default declaratory judgment obtained in Minnesota stating that nothing was owed under the parties' agreements.

The Court of Appeal held that even assuming the technical requirements of res judicata or issue estoppel were met, the motion judge properly exercised discretion not to apply those doctrines where doing so would be unjust.

The court emphasized the absence of any merits determination in the foreign proceeding, the tactical and defensive nature of the foreign declaratory action, and the fact that the compensation claim was integrally tied to Ontario under contracts governed and enforced by Ontario law.

Comity did not require a stay in the circumstances.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible (NCR) for the second-degree murder of his wife, applied to receive the proceeds of her life insurance policy.

The application judge dismissed the claim, applying the public policy rule that a person cannot profit from their own criminal act.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the public policy rule does not apply to an NCR accused, as they are not morally responsible for their actions.

The Court also found that the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 does not supplant the common law rule, though it leaves open the possibility for the Attorney General to seek forfeiture.

The appeal was allowed and the proceeds were ordered payable to the appellant.

The appellant, a dependent contractor managing cattle auctions for the respondent Association, appealed the dismissal of his breach of contract claim following his termination.

The trial judge found the appellant had repudiated the contract through insubordination, refusal to work with the Association's President, and making unfounded allegations of fraud.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge properly applied the contextual approach to assess the misconduct and correctly concluded that the appellant's actions struck at the heart of the employment relationship, justifying termination without warning.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that its commercial general liability insurance policy did not cover its distribution centres.

The application judge found the policy ambiguous and relied on uncontroverted extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intentions regarding coverage.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the finding of ambiguity and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment enforcing a guarantee.

He argued the motion judge impermissibly made credibility findings and that the principal debtor's bankruptcy suspended his liability under the guarantee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge properly found the appellant failed to put his best foot forward, and that a debtor's bankruptcy does not release a guarantor absent specific wording in the guarantee.

The appellant, Minor Oaks Hockey Association Inc., appealed a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court judge's decision and reasons.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellant appealed a judgment determining the scope of a guarantee and resulting damages on an application under Rule 14.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding a factual dispute regarding the guarantee's scope and an insufficient factual basis to determine damages.

The court set aside the judgment and directed the trial of an issue on the alleged breach of the guarantee and resulting damages.

The appellants appealed the refusal to set aside an international commercial arbitration award under the UNCITRAL Model Law as incorporated by Ontario statute.

They argued that the arbitral procedure offended public policy and that they had been unable to present their case because of limited disclosure of agreements and the absence of foreign witnesses.

The court held that the tribunal's procedure did not offend local principles of justice and fairness in a fundamental way and that the appellants had not been deprived of an adequate opportunity to present their case.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.