Civil Litigation - Defendant - ONSCDC

The plaintiff appealed a trial judgment that awarded damages and punitive damages to the defendant arising from a commercial lease of truck trailers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the plaintiff breached its maintenance obligations.

The Court also upheld the trial judge's interpretation of the lease regarding early return of trailers and affirmed the punitive damages award, noting that specific damages need not be proven for a breach of contract to support punitive damages.

Leave to appeal the costs award was denied.

The plaintiff applied for leave to appeal a costs award of $3,000 made against him by Pitt J. The application was filed six months after the order, well beyond the seven-day limit prescribed by Rule 62.02.

The Divisional Court refused to extend the time due to the inordinate and unexplained delay.

The court also noted there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the original costs award and dismissed the application for leave to appeal, awarding $2,000 in costs to the respondent.

The appellants (defendants) brought a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, having missed the deadline by one business day due to counsel's inadvertence.

The court applied the test for extending time, finding a firm intention to appeal, a reasonable explanation for the delay, and no prejudice to the respondent.

However, upon considering the 'justice of the case', the court found the proposed grounds of appeal regarding the tort of conversion had so little merit that the extension should be denied.

The application was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding a case management master's order that denied full documentary production prior to a motion to stay the action for arbitration.

The Divisional Court clarified the standard of review for orders of case management masters, holding that discretionary decisions and interlocutory matters of law not vital to the disposition of the lawsuit are subject to a standard of deference and should not be interfered with unless clearly wrong.

Finding that the master's decision on documentary production was not vital to the disposition of the lawsuit, the court dismissed the appeal.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision allowing the plaintiff to proceed with a tort claim for conspiracy.

The defendants argued the claim conflicted with established principles, including those in Foss v. Harbottle.

The Divisional Court denied leave to appeal, finding no conflict in principles and agreeing with the lower court that the plaintiff's claim was solely one of conspiracy, where bankruptcy was merely an element of the alleged scheme to harm her.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding the wrongful dismissal of a legal assistant who had worked for the appellant lawyer for 17 years.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by not drawing an adverse inference from the respondent's refusal to waive solicitor-client privilege, by finding the respondent reasonably mitigated her damages, and by dismissing a claim for assigned disbursements.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's treatment of privilege, mitigation, or the lack of notice for the assigned disbursements.

Following the release of reasons on June 10, 2003, the parties reached an agreement on costs.

The court fixed costs in the agreed amount of $3,436.50, payable by the appellant to the successful respondents.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict assessing her general damages at $35,000 and future loss of income at zero following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The appellant argued that questions posed by the jury during deliberations showed they considered irrelevant matters, and sought a new trial or reassessment of damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's recharge cured any potential issues with the jury's questions, and that the jury's verdict on damages was not so unreasonable and unjust as to warrant appellate intervention.

The appellants appealed an order clarifying a previous judgment regarding interest payable to a dissenting shareholder under s. 185 of the Business Corporations Act.

The motion judge initially ordered interest 'in accordance with section 185' and later clarified that only postjudgment interest would be awarded from the date of judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge retained jurisdiction to specify both the rate and the time period for interest, and properly exercised his discretion.

Following a successful appeal, the appellant sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The respondent argued that the costs award should not exceed the $750 amount previously requested by the appellant.

The court agreed, fixing costs at $750.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his solicitor negligence claim against his former lawyer.

The appellant alleged that the lawyer's negligence in advising him and representing him at a bail hearing resulted in his 30-day detention.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings that there was no causal connection between the lawyer's actions and the detention.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $10,000.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to expedite the hearing of the defendant's appeal from an order certifying the action as a class proceeding.

The defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the appeal involved complex issues and that the proposed timeline was too short.

The court found that there were good grounds to expedite the appeal to prevent delay in the ongoing action and to address the vulnerability of the plaintiff franchisees.

The motion was granted, and the appeal was scheduled for the first available two-day period.

The appellant estate executor sought an extension of time to perfect an appeal from a judgment awarding the respondent a lump sum payment under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The respondent argued the judgment was for support and not automatically stayed pending appeal.

The court granted the extension of time but ordered the appellant to pay the judgment amount plus pre-judgment interest in trust as a condition of the extension, finding the judgment was not stayed or alternatively lifting the stay.

Costs of $7,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The moving parties brought a motion to have four applications heard together.

The applications all involved the interpretation of section 13 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act regarding 'advice or recommendations' in different factual contexts.

The court found that hearing the applications together would be in the interests of justice and would not cause substantial prejudice or inconvenience.

The motion was granted and the applications were ordered to be heard together.

The defendant appealed a Master's order dismissing an application to appoint a litigation guardian and brought a motion to stay the order pending appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the psychiatric evidence was vague and failed to establish a serious issue to be tried.

The court also found no irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs due to the defendant's history of procedural delay.

Costs of $1,500 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision dismissing their motion for summary judgment.

The underlying action involved claims of conspiracy and unlawful interference against the defendants, who acted as opposing counsel in a prior oppression proceeding that settled.

The court granted leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4)(ii), finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision due to a failure to provide sufficient reasons addressing whether the action was frivolous and vexatious, and determining the issue was of sufficient public importance.

This is a supplementary reasons for judgment regarding costs following an appeal and a Rule 59 motion concerning a pension plan death benefit.

The successful appellant sought substantial indemnity costs payable out of the pension plan fund.

The court found that the litigation clarified a problematic part of the Pension Benefits Act, benefiting members and administrators of plans throughout Ontario.

Applying the principle that costs of litigation necessary for the administration of a trust should be paid from the trust, the court awarded the appellant substantial indemnity costs of $40,000 plus disbursements, payable by the Board from the funds of the Plan.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering her to pay $3,184.59 to the respondent purchasers for defects discovered after closing a real estate transaction.

The defects included a cracked water pipe that the appellant had concealed, leaks in the swimming pool covered by a surviving warranty, and a missing pool pump that the appellant had stored without notifying the purchasers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact.

The appellants appealed a Master's order granting summary judgment in favour of the respondent defendants in a multi-vehicle accident case.

The Master had dismissed the claims against the respondents, finding no genuine issue for trial regarding their liability.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that conflicting evidence regarding the number of impacts and the sequence of collisions raised genuine issues for trial that should not be resolved on a summary judgment motion.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment ordering them to pay $7,000 to the respondent.

The trial judge found that the respondent and the appellant Tony Chao had an oral agreement wherein Chao would hold $7,000 in trust for the respondent in a dormant corporate account.

The appellants argued that the respondent breached his fiduciary duties as an officer and lawyer for the corporation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample uncontradicted evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion that this was a simple contract and no fiduciary duty was breached.