Civil Litigation - Plaintiff - ONCA

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision that dismissed his application for judicial review of a Law Society Tribunal decision.

The moving party was over three months late in filing his motion and provided no adequate explanation for the delay.

The Court of Appeal found that the proposed appeal, which challenged the admission of an investigator's annotated transcript as hearsay, had no merit.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed with costs fixed at $2,000.

The appellant sought leave to bring a class action for secondary market misrepresentation under the Securities Act, alleging the respondent company's public disclosures overstated mining resources and inflated its share price.

The motion judge dismissed the leave application and the certification motion, finding the appellant's expert evidence was completely undermined by the respondent's evidence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the motion judge applied an overly strict test by weighing the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the statutory leave test requires a reasoned consideration and weighing of all evidence proffered by both parties to ensure the action has a reasonable possibility of success.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent for unpaid structural consulting services.

The motion judge's endorsement merely stated that there was no genuine issue for trial, without providing any factual findings or legal analysis.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge's reasons were so deficient that they did not permit meaningful appellate review.

The court declined to decide the summary judgment motion itself due to unresolved factual disputes and directed the parties to seek an expedited hearing on the merits.

The appellants appealed an order of the motion judge granting summary judgment and awarding costs to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's reasons for summary judgment or the costs award, noting the costs award was not unreasonable or erroneous in principle.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The appellants, three physicians, appealed a trial judgment finding them liable in negligence for the delayed diagnosis and death of a patient from infective endocarditis.

The trial judge found the emergency room resident breached the standard of care by failing to review a SARS form containing critical clinical history, and held the supervising physician vicariously liable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal regarding the supervising physician, as vicarious liability was neither pleaded nor argued at trial.

However, the Court dismissed the appeal regarding the resident's breach of the standard of care and the trial judge's causation findings, concluding that the evidence supported the determination that a timely diagnosis would have prevented the patient's death.

The City of Toronto appealed a Divisional Court order certifying a class proceeding brought by a rooming house tenant.

The plaintiff alleged the City negligently failed to deliver statutorily-mandated rent reduction notices to tenants targeted by the Parkdale Pilot Project.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was not plain and obvious that the City owed no private law duty of care to this specific subgroup of tenants, and that policy considerations would not inevitably negate such a duty.

The appellant doctor appealed a trial judgment awarding damages to the respondent patient and his family for a stroke suffered following a cervical rhizotomy.

The trial judge found the appellant failed to obtain informed consent and that a reasonable person in the respondent's position would not have consented if properly informed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions on liability and upholding the damages awards for general damages and future economic loss.

The appellant lawyer was sued for defamation by the opposing party in a former matrimonial proceeding.

The lawyer sought to use documents provided to him by his former client to defend the defamation action, and moved for relief from the deemed undertaking rule.

The motion judge dismissed the motion and ordered the lawyer to return the documents to his former client.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the deemed undertaking rule did not apply because the documents were not obtained under the discovery rules, but rather provided by the client to her own lawyer.

The Court also set aside the order to return the documents, as neither party had requested that relief.

The appellants appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasons of the lower court judge, and awarded costs to the respondent in the fixed amount of $10,000.

The appellant insurer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent insured statutory accident benefits and $25,000 in damages for mental distress following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer had terminated housekeeping and transportation benefits based on a superficial independent medical examination, ignoring its own occupational therapist's recommendations.

The Court of Appeal upheld the awards for housekeeping benefits, s. 24 assessments, and mental distress, finding that peace of mind is a reasonably contemplated object of an automobile insurance contract.

The court allowed the appeal only to reduce the quantum of transportation benefits from $7,500 to $2,280 due to a lack of evidence supporting the higher amount.

The appellant, an independent power producer, appealed a trial judgment that found the respondent breached a power purchase agreement but awarded no damages due to unreliable evidence.

The trial judge had concluded that the respondent failed to include an inter-area transmission credit in its avoided costs calculations, but dismissed the damages claim because the appellant's expert evidence was deemed unreliable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of breach but held that the trial judge erred in dismissing the damages claim entirely.

Relying on Martin v. Goldfarb, the Court found that where a significant loss is proven but the quantum is difficult to assess, the plaintiff should not be denied compensation.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial on damages was ordered.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his libel action against a magazine publisher.

The motion judge had concluded that certain excerpts were not defamatory or not capable of referring to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in his application of the test for summary judgment.

The Court held that, reading the article as a whole, the excerpts were capable of being defamatory of the appellant and raised a genuine issue for trial.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment enforcing a settlement agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that there was no genuine issue for trial regarding whether an unconditional settlement offer was made on July 8, 2008, and accepted the following day.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant bank appealed a trial judgment dismissing its action against the respondent guarantor.

The respondent had personally guaranteed a $700,000 line of credit for his company and provided a $700,000 collateral mortgage.

After the company became insolvent, the respondent paid $700,000 to discharge the mortgage, but the bank demanded an additional $700,000 under the guarantee.

The trial judge found a common mistake, holding that the parties intended the mortgage to secure the guarantee, and rectified the agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the prerequisites for rectification of unilateral mistakes do not apply to common mistakes, and the trial judge's findings were reasonably supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondents $393,431.99 in damages arising from a water slide accident that caused the respondent to suffer a head injury and chronic migraines.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's calculation of future loss of income and future medication costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the future loss of income award, finding no palpable and overriding error, but reduced the future care costs by $10,000 to account for the expected decreased cost of medication due to generic competition.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that disputed lands had been dedicated and accepted for public uses as a park.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the application judge's factual findings regarding public use.

Furthermore, the Court held that the respondent Township had established title to the lands through adverse possession, as it had erected a fence in 1990 with the intention of excluding the appellant and had maintained actual possession since that time.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order enforcing Minutes of Settlement signed after mediation.

They argued their solicitor lacked authority to settle, the agreement was signed under duress, the settlement should not have been approved for the minor plaintiffs, and the agreement was not binding because a release was never signed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the solicitor had ostensible authority, there was no evidence of duress, the motion judge did not err in approving the settlement for the minors, and the requirement to sign a release did not prevent the Minutes from being a binding agreement.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondent bank for $32,796.01.

The appellant argued that her cross-motion to dismiss the bank's motion should have been granted due to the bank's failure to attend cross-examinations on its amended affidavit of documents.

The appellant conceded that summary judgment was properly granted based on the documentation eventually provided.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to set aside the judgment.

The court noted the bank's dilatory production but observed that the motion judge had already accounted for this by limiting prejudgment interest and denying the bank costs at first instance.

The respondents moved to stay the appellant's action and for an order for security for costs on the appeal, citing the appellant's failure to pay over $27,000 in costs awards from previous unsuccessful proceedings.

The appellant, who was suing for historical sexual and physical abuse, was impecunious and relied on a disability pension.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motions, finding that despite the unpaid costs and the respondents' valid concerns, the impecunious appellant should not be deprived of a final opportunity to have his case considered on the merits, as the appeal was not plainly devoid of merit.

The respondent sought costs of the appeal on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Court of Appeal found the issues straightforward, with the only complication being the need for supplementary factums.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent and fixed at $10,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The court also ordered that funds standing in court be paid out first to the respondent for trial and appeal costs, with any remaining balance to the appellant.